BUSINESS BEFORE QUESTIONS

Standing Orders (Private Business)

Ordered,
That the Amendments to Standing Orders relating to Private Business set out in the Schedule be made.—(The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.)

Oral
Answers to
Questions

BUSINESS, ENERGY AND INDUSTRIAL STRATEGY

The Secretary of State was asked—

Electric and Autonomous Vehicles

Matt Warman: What steps he has taken to support the development of electric and autonomous vehicles.

Andrew Lewer: What steps he is taking to support businesses that are developing connected and autonomous vehicles through the Midlands Engine.

Greg Clark: Our industrial strategy capitalises on our strengths as we build the next generation of motor vehicles. In July, we committed £246 million to the Faraday Battery Challenge to make Britain a centre for the development of battery storage. I have also announced £51 million to fund automated vehicle testbeds across the country. I am delighted to say that in October Ford opened its new European Mobility headquarters in Britain.

Matt Warman: Whether lorries or tractors, it is in rural areas where autonomous vehicles have the potential to make a particularly profound impact. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that the research that he is funding will look in particular at rural areas rather than simply focusing on our very well connected cities?

Greg Clark: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. He is right in saying that, if this is to apply right across the country, the opportunities in rural areas are very important not just for the vehicles he describes, but for public transport. He will know that at the University of Lincoln, not far from him, excellent work is being done through the Centre for Autonomous Systems on the future of mobility. I hope that it will be a participant in this great wave across the country of research and development in the technologies of the future.

Andrew Lewer: Silverstone Technology Cluster supports many thousands of jobs in and around Northamptonshire, including in companies such as Cosworth in my constituency of Northampton South. What steps are the Government taking to support the Silverstone cluster?

Greg Clark: My hon. Friend is absolutely right that the choice that some of the world’s best motor manufacturers make to locate in the cluster reinforces our reputation. Last year, we launched the Aylesbury Vale enterprise zone, which supports the Silverstone high-performance technology cluster. It provides an environment that is helping to deliver new jobs in this sector. The local growth fund for his area includes an innovation centre, which is geared to automotive technology in the enterprise zone.

Barry Sheerman: I urge the Secretary of State to say something to leading engineering businesses and the University of Huddersfield where we are doing a lot of research on autonomous vehicles, because they might have listened to “Today” on Radio 4 this morning and heard another Secretary of State using a mysterious kind of language. He was talking about “a new post-Brexit trade policy” and “a new trade remedies body”—what is a new trade remedies body?

John Bercow: I do not care what a new trade remedies body is. All I am concerned about is autonomous vehicles—electric or otherwise. Let us hear about the matter.

Greg Clark: The hon. Gentleman asks an important question. It is absolutely right that the researchers at the university will have huge opportunities in this area. The reputation for excellence that has been established in that university is well known not just across the country, but around the world. The Prime Minister and I had the privilege of attending a roundtable of the leading managers across the motor industry, including the supply chain. They are united in their excitement about what is the biggest change in mobility since the invention of the petrol and diesel engine. We are replete with these possibilities, and it is increasingly recognised that we are establishing a reputation for being the place in the world to come for them.

Nick Thomas-Symonds: Whether it is exporters of autonomous vehicles or other exporters within the automobile industry in my constituency, what they need going forward is a consistent regulatory framework. What kind of guarantees can the Secretary of State give to exporters such as those in my constituency as we leave the EU?

Greg Clark: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. The predictability of the regulatory environment is extremely important for future investment. It is one reason why we have introduced the Automated and Electric Vehicles Bill, which will be ahead of the world in establishing the right regulatory environment for electric and autonomous vehicles. Again, this is something that has commanded the attention of the world, and it is exactly in line with what he says.

Mims Davies: As we take steps to grow the economy and decrease emissions, will the Secretary of State commit to working with all businesses  involved on the noise that autonomous and electric vehicles make, as highlighted by my deaf and blind constituents, and to working with the disabilities agenda as this new technology moves forward?

Greg Clark: My hon. Friend is absolutely right that one of the advantages of the new technologies is that they give particular hope to people who find it difficult or impossible to use conventional vehicles. Part of the point of putting together the research in the automotive, renewable energy, healthcare and social care sectors is that we can join the benefits of all of them in a single programme.

Dennis Skinner: If we are going to be having these electric vehicles, these autonomous vehicles, and everything else is going to be wonderful, why bother with £100 billion on HS2?

Greg Clark: Because we need both. Our ambition is to make this country one of the best connected in the world so that it is possible to go from the capital to our midlands, northern cities and beyond quickly and efficiently, and have more capacity to move freight around the country. I would have thought, given the importance of the motor industry to Derbyshire, that the hon. Gentleman, as a Derbyshire MP, would welcome the investment and progress in the sector, including £250 million invested by Toyota in its excellent plant.

Barry Gardiner: Germany has said 2030; Norway and Holland are aiming for 2025. The Chinese owners of Volvo say that all their new models will have an electric motor from 2019. As the climate conference in Bonn begins, does the Secretary of State consider that the UK Government’s plan to ban the sale of fossil fuel vehicles from only 2040 is somewhat lacking in ambition, failing to provide strong leadership, or downright pathetic and making the UK a laughing stock?

Greg Clark: If the hon. Gentleman reflects on our reputation in the world, he should know that, for international leadership on climate change, it is very strong. He would do well to commend rather than undermine that. In the past few weeks, we launched the clean growth strategy, which commits, across a range of areas, not just to meet our legal commitments and generate jobs in those important technologies, but to lead the world in exports. I would have thought that he would use his time at the Dispatch Box to commend the Government for a document that has been well received across the world.

Leaving the EU: Civil Nuclear Industry

Wera Hobhouse: What assessment he has made of the effect of the UK leaving the EU on the civil nuclear industry.

Richard Harrington: The Government have made clear their commitment to the continuing success of the nuclear sector, including nuclear research, in this country. We are aiming for a maximum level of continuity with the current arrangements. My Department has held discussions with the sector to ensure we understand and address its concerns.

Wera Hobhouse: Does the Minister agree that the uncertainties over leaving the EU, as well as the falling prices of solar energy and the timescale for delivering the projects, will make nuclear energy projects such as Hinkley Point deliver very little value for money?

Richard Harrington: I very much disagree with the hon. Lady’s assessment. The Government’s policy is to go for a mix of different types of energy, of which nuclear power is firmly and clearly one, as are renewables and all the others.

John Stevenson: As the Minister knows, the nuclear industry is extremely important to Cumbria. Does he agree that leaving the EU has its issues, but that it is far more important to ensure that we have a nuclear sector deal as part of the industrial strategy, which will mean real investment and growth in the sector?

Richard Harrington: I agree with my hon. Friend and I commend him for all his work to support the nuclear industry. We are very well aware of the nuclear sector deal. I met leaders of the industry last week, as I do repeatedly, to ensure that their sector deal is important and will be relevant to carrying the industry forward for a long time in the future.

Layla Moran: The civil nuclear industry is getting increasingly twitchy about Euratom transition arrangements. Will the Minister today clarify whether Euratom membership can continue during the transition period and, if not, will he support the cross-party amendment 300 to the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill, which would protect the civil nuclear industry from a cliff-edge Brexit?

Richard Harrington: The hon. Lady will be aware that these matters are being discussed in the Bill Committee. The Government intend to build a consensual view to ratify the problem. I know she has a keen constituency interest. The Government are aware of all the issues. It is our intention to have the closest possible relationship with members of Euratom.

Mark Pawsey: It is very important that we achieve an agreement with the EU that enables us to retain as many of the benefits of Euratom as possible. Will the Minister say something about the future of small modular reactors in the UK?

Richard Harrington: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. The Department is looking closely at small nuclear reactors. We have had presentations from many different companies and entities involved in developing this technology. We hope this will be brought to a conclusion very quickly. I commend him. I visited his constituency to see the research work going on there. We are very supportive of it.

John Woodcock: Exiting the EU is introducing an added complication into the efforts to rescue the Moorside deal, with all the jobs and security it would bring. Are the Government open to the idea of offering a stake in the Moorside project if the conditions with a particular buyer are right?

Richard Harrington: I would make two points to the hon. Gentleman, who is also a worthy champion of the nuclear industry: the Moorside arrangement is a private commercial matter for Toshiba; and in my view what is happening with Euratom and the EU is not really relevant here.

Horizon 2020 Programme

Ian Murray: What steps he has taken to ensure that the UK participates in the Horizon 2020 programme for the duration of that programme.

Jo Johnson: The Government have acted quickly to underwrite Horizon 2020 funding that is competitively bid for by UK participants. As we set out in our future partnership paper, “Collaboration on Science and Innovation”, we will seek an agreement on science and innovation that protects us now and in the future, and continues to ensure we deliver these great partnerships.

Ian Murray: Edinburgh is blessed with three world-class universities, Napier, Heriot-Watt and Edinburgh, which punch significantly above their weight in being able to gain EU funding for research and development. Will the Minister come to the Dispatch Box to reassure those universities that they will still be able to access research and development funding at European Union level when we leave the EU?

Jo Johnson: As I said, we are working towards an agreement that will ensure our continued success in European science and research collaborations. Scottish institutions do indeed do exceptionally well. They punch well above their weight in winning about 11% of the share of UK participation in Horizon 2020, which is well above their GDP and population share. We want that to continue.

Stephen Gethins: The Minister is right to highlight that Scottish universities are world-beating. In my constituency, the University of St Andrews receives £38 million of research funding that relies on our partnerships with the European Union and European institutions. What reassurances can he provide about plans post-2020, so that those partnerships will be able to continue?

Jo Johnson: As I just said, we are working hard to ensure an agreement with the rest of the European Union to ensure we can continue to collaborate closely in important areas of research and innovation. As I have just said, Scottish institutions do well in terms of their share of overall UK participation in Horizon 2020. We want that kind of success to continue in the years ahead. Very impactful research is done in Scotland on a collaborative basis across the continent. We have every intention of that continuing in the years ahead.

Science and Innovation: Worcestershire

Rachel Maclean: What steps he is taking to support science and innovation in Worcestershire.

Jo Johnson: We have committed to the single largest increase in science and innovation funding for nearly 40 years, adding an additional £4.7 billion to our science spending. This helps to drive growth across the country, and I am pleased that a consortia led by Worcestershire local enterprise partnership will be undertaking a science and innovation audit on the theme of cyber-resilience. This will identify local research and innovation strengths to drive economic growth.

Rachel Maclean: Following the commitment in the industrial strategy Green Paper to build new institutes of technology, will the Minister, if his diary permits, meet me in Redditch to review what an excellent location it would make for one of the first institutes of technology? It has fantastic transport links and access to business, and would provide a great opportunity for young people.

Jo Johnson: My hon. Friend is a strong champion for her constituency, and I am pleased to say that we have recently issued a statement confirming our intention to establish high quality and prestigious institutions that specialise in delivering the higher level technical skills that employers need across all regions of England. We will be launching a call for proposals before the end of the year and would welcome applications from Redditch and other places across the country.

Leaving the EU: Scottish Research Sector

Carol Monaghan: What recent assessment he has made of the effect of the UK leaving the EU on the Scottish research sector.

Jo Johnson: As I have said, Scottish institutions are performing well in terms of their participation levels in Horizon 2020, and we want that to continue in the years ahead. The Government are working hard to ensure the success of our institutions and to get an agreement that enables us to continue to collaborate in the years ahead.

Carol Monaghan: Of course we also want our institutions to continue to do well, but our research sector is facing a significant loss of funding owing to Brexit, which will of course impact on innovation. What direct communication have the Government had with Scottish universities about the funding threat posed by Brexit?

Jo Johnson: The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and the Department for Education are in constant contact with all the devolved Administrations at various levels on a wide range of issues, including EU exit. BEIS participates in various forums, including the UK research funders group, and officials have recently participated in working groups with the Scottish Government, Universities Scotland, Heriot-Watt University and Edinburgh University.

Carbon Capture and Storage

John McNally: What steps he is taking to support the development of carbon capture and storage technology.

Alan Brown: What steps he is taking to support the development of carbon capture and storage technology.

Claire Perry: Carbon capture usage and storage has huge potential to play a vital future role in reducing emissions across a range of activities, but the technology has to be made more cost-effective to deploy at scale. That is why we have committed up to £100 million of public money in CCUS innovation in our clean growth strategy and why are working with the private sector and other Governments to drive up technological innovation and to drive down costs.

John McNally: The clean growth strategy falls short of boosting the investment necessary to stimulate change in carbon capture and storage, and the industrial strategy Green Paper failed to mention it. In the light of the previous failure to deliver on Peterhead, what measures will the Minister announce to recover that investment?

Claire Perry: The world has not yet decided to invest in traditional CCUS. There are 21 at-scale plants operating globally, of which 16 rely on enhanced oil recovery as a revenue stream. It is simply not cost-effective enough in its current form for us to commit large-scale investment. We have to get the costs down. We are now in a world where the private sector wants to invest, however, and I am sure we would both welcome developments such as Project Acorn, to which both the UK Government and the Scottish Government have committed funds.

Alan Brown: The Minister does not like being reminded that the pulling of the £1 billion for the Peterhead project was a betrayal of the north-east of Scotland and the Scottish energy sector. She talks at the Dispatch Box about value for money, but the strike price of £92.50 at Hinkley is not value for money. When will the Government make real financial commitments to CCS in Scotland?

Claire Perry: In the world I live in, £100 million is quite a substantial financial investment in CCUS. It is striking that the Scottish Government invested only £100,000 in Project Acorn, as opposed to our £1.3 million. The point remains that the technology is not cost-effective. Only six plants in the world are operating without additional revenue from enhanced oil recovery. We want Britain to be the technological leader and to develop cost-effective solutions. I hope that we can work together to achieve that aim.

Alan Whitehead: I welcome the return to some consideration of CCS in the clean growth plan, after the Government’s dreadful mistake in cancelling the £1 billion UK CCS pilot plants in 2015. What discussions has the Minister had with her Norwegian counterparts on the prospects for UK-Norway collaboration on that country’s advanced plans for carbon sequestration in the North sea?

Claire Perry: As the hon. Gentleman will know, Norway is currently a little bit unsure about the level of its own financial commitment. However, it has an excellent Energy Minister, with whom I have had multiple meetings and conversations. It seems strange to me that, having taken the hydrocarbons out of the North sea basin,  we should not co-operate to put the carbon dioxide back, so there are frequent conversations. The hon. Gentleman will have seen the clean growth strategy, on which we would like very much to work with other countries—not just Norway, but the United States and Canada as well.

Drew Hendry: We have just heard about the broken promise to establish a world-leading carbon capture project at Peterhead. That is another betrayal of the North sea industry: £1 billion was never invested, and 600 jobs were never created. Is it not true that when it comes to the North sea, this Government are no good at anything except breaking promises?

Claire Perry: Some might say that the Scottish National party is not very good at forecasting oil prices. As I have already said, no Governments have taken a very substantial bet in the past few years—I call it a bet because it is not cost-effective—but, as the hon. Gentleman will know, organisations such as the Oil and Gas Climate Initiative are asking us, “How can we work together in a public-private arrangement to deliver the best, most cost-effective solutions?” We need to create some technology that we can export, like the oil and gas services that have delivered such economic value in the North sea.

Drew Hendry: Support for the North sea was also promised by the former Prime Minister in January 2016, when he said:
“An Oil and Gas Ambassador will be appointed to…promote”
oil and gas
“around the world”.
However, the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, the hon. Member for Watford (Richard Harrington), told the Press and Journal recently that it was a “good idea” but he was “not aware” of it. He said:
“It’s not crossed my desk”.
Whose desk did it cross? Or was it just another fantasy— a false promise from a “say anything, do nothing” Government”?

Claire Perry: I can understand why there is not much solar installation in Scotland: it appears that the sun never shines north of the border.
I will take no lessons from the hon. Gentleman about support for the North sea, which is a vital industry. I cannot answer his point about the ambassador, but I shall be happy to discuss it with my colleagues.

Leaving the EU: Automotive Sector

Tom Brake: What discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union on the effect of the UK leaving the EU on the automotive sector.

Greg Clark: I have frequent discussions with the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union. The UK continues to demonstrate that it is an attractive place for future investment. Companies such as Nissan, BMW and Toyota continue to invest, thanks to our highly skilled workforce, the strong partnership between the Government and industry and long-term investment in new technology and innovation.

Tom Brake: I am sure the Secretary of State is aware that some car manufacturers are questioning whether to make further investments in the UK because they are uncertain about the validity of type approvals after we have left the European Union. When will the Secretary of State be in a position to confirm that they will indeed be valid and that the trucks shipping components will not be stuck in long queues at either Dover or Calais?

Greg Clark: I have been very clear in my discussions with the industry, and, as I said earlier, last week we had a roundtable at No. 10 with the Prime Minister. It is essential for our trading relationship with the European Union not only to be tariff-free, but to allow the continuation of a means of production that involves multiple components going back and forth, often at very short notice. There are questions about, for instance, type approval and rules of origin, and we are working with the industry to ensure that those matters are part of the deal that we want to achieve. That is a course that I know Members in all parts of the House would commend.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Mitsubishi’s headquarters are in Cirencester, where it employs 250 people and supports 113 dealerships throughout the UK. I wholeheartedly endorse my right hon. Friend’s remarks about needing to secure a Brexit agreement that supports the automotive sector, so that we can protect those jobs.

Greg Clark: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The industry is aware of the firmness of our intention. It makes no sense to disrupt what has been a very successful relationship between this country and some of the home countries of those manufacturers: that is very clear in all our minds.

Rachel Reeves: Our successful car manufacturing sector exports nearly 1 million cars a year to the rest of the European Union. However, the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders has said:
“Brexit is the greatest challenge of our times”.
What is the Secretary of State doing to ensure that there are no costly tariffs or time-consuming customs checks in the sector after we leave the EU?

Greg Clark: We met the SMMT and all members of the sector to discuss every aspect of the challenges and opportunities ahead. The hon. Lady is of course right that Brexit is very much on the minds of every motor manufacturer, which is why the discussions we have had reinforced our commitment not only to secure a good deal at high level, but to make sure all the particular aspects for that industry are addressed. The industry was also enthusiastic about our clear commitment, with mounting enthusiasm being shown on the part of our partners, big and small, to invest in the future and to make sure that what makes Britain attractive as a place to locate continues to be so in the future.

Jack Dromey: Ten years in low-paid work and then four years a Jaguar apprentice, I will never forget Warren waxing lyrical about the job that he loves, and moving into, in his words, the house of his dreams with the woman of his dreams. Does the Secretary of State begin to understand  that, as a consequence of this Government’s disastrous mishandling of Brexit, investment has fallen by over 50%? Does he begin to recognise the damage the Government are doing to workers like Warren and the jewel in the crown of British manufacturing?

Greg Clark: If the hon. Gentleman talks to people in the motor industry, as in other industries, he will know that no one is more vigorous and active than I am in meeting prospective investors to explain our strategy and the attractiveness of the UK. As a result of the industry’s work, supported by the Government, we have had a commitment from BMW to build the electric Mini in the UK, Toyota is investing a quarter of a billion pounds in Derbyshire, Nissan has confirmed that it will build two new models in Sunderland, and other discussions are continuing. That work, in the context of the need for continued good access to the European market, is giving confidence to the industry. I would have hoped that it was a matter of consensus across the House that we should maintain that confidence, rather than seek to undermine it.

Smart Meters

Nigel Huddleston: What assessment he has made of the effect on consumers’ awareness of energy consumption of installing a smart meter.

Richard Harrington: Recent research has been conducted by Smart Energy GB, the independent not-for-profit organisation responsible for national consumer engagement on smart meters. It found that 86% of people with a smart meter said that they had made energy-saving changes to their behaviour and that this positive action was maintained over time after installation.

Nigel Huddleston: The Minister is obviously aware that, by encouraging better energy consumption, the average consumer saves about £75 a year through a smart meter. Does he agree that smart meters will enable more switching of suppliers, saving the average customer £200 a year, and that this is therefore good for the environment and for consumers?

Richard Harrington: I totally agree with my hon. Friend’s analysis. Smart meters enable consumers to make more confident and informed decisions about which supplier and tariff is right for them. Interestingly, Ofgem’s survey for 2017 showed that consumers who say they have a smart meter are more likely to have switched supplier in the past 12 months.

Mary Creagh: Energy consumption and awareness is a two-way street, and the companies are aware of what energy is being consumed in the home, so what steps is the Minister taking to ensure that energy companies do not increase the customer’s daily rate as customers reduce their energy consumption?

Richard Harrington: The hon. Lady should rest assured that this is on our agenda. Increases must have Ofgem approval, and it is something we are monitoring very carefully.[Official Report, 14 November 2017, Vol. 631, c. 1MC.]

John Lamont: What assessment have the Government made of the security of smart meters?

Richard Harrington: The Government consider the security of smart meters to be very important, and the whole smart meter programme was designed with the approval of the cyber-security body and all the other relevant authorities.

Jim Shannon: How does the Minister intend to make the process for switching between gas or electric companies easier for those with smart meters, as the process is extremely convoluted, to use a Ulster-Scots-ism, at present, with customer smart reading going dumb and manual readings having to be sent out?

Richard Harrington: The hon. Gentleman should be aware that the SMETS 2 programme involves complete compatibility between all the different meters, enabling people to switch. The current system that is being installed, SMETS 1, will be applicable for that in, we think, about a year, when the software allows that to happen.

Paris Climate Change Agreement

Michael Tomlinson: What steps he has taken to meet the UK’s commitments under the Paris climate change agreement.

Claire Perry: The UK was a leading negotiator of the extraordinary Paris agreement in which 195 countries agreed to act to keep the global temperature rise well below 2°. In 2016, only two countries in the world cut their carbon emissions intensity in line with that Paris goal: China and the UK. Last month, our clean growth strategy set out how we intend to go further and faster in cutting our UK emissions to reach the Paris goal, while delivering economic growth.

Michael Tomlinson: Many of my constituents have contacted me with their concerns about climate change. Following Paris, what steps is the Minister taking to ensure that there is a global political movement to combat climate change?

Claire Perry: I will be going to Bonn next week for the 23rd United Nations climate change conference with the council of partners, where we will join other leading nations in reaffirming our commitment to the Paris goals and working on a variety of practical initiatives such as the phase-out of power generation from unabated coal. Britain, which started the industrial revolution using coal, now leads the world in phasing it out. We will also be working on the use of innovative financial solutions to mobilise private investment in low carbon technologies.

Jenny Chapman: How does the Minister intend to support carbon capture and storage in the Tees valley, given that that, too, would improve our environmental ambitions and enhance economic growth?

Claire Perry: The hon. Lady will know that the Tees valley has been incredibly assiduous in campaigning in many ways to be a location for the deployment of the new technology. We are working actively with it and we would like to see some investment proposals coming forward.

Edward Argar: In reaffirming the UK’s commitment to the Paris climate change deal, will my hon. Friend assure me that she had her colleagues will continue to pressure and persuade other countries that have not signed up to it or that might be reticent about its merits and about why they should be involved?

Claire Perry: My hon. Friend makes a good point: we are only as good as the partners that we are working with. Other countries, including India and China, have set progressive goals for their own countries involving very rapid decarbonisation. Paris remains fit for purpose and will not be renegotiated. We would like all countries, particularly the major OECD countries, to change their minds and get behind this groundbreaking agreement for the world.

Caroline Lucas: The Committee on Climate Change clearly states that fracking cannot be compatible with the UK’s climate change targets unless three key tests—on methane gas, on gas consumption and on carbon budgets—are met. Given that the Government have not shown that those tests can be met, will the Minister’s Department refuse consent for fracking in Ryedale, North Yorkshire, which is currently under consideration, or is she planning simply to ignore the advice from the Committee on Climate Change?

Claire Perry: We cannot comment on particular cases. Testing wells are being drilled at the moment, and we need to understand the scientific basis, so that we can prove or disprove these tests. I find it slightly odd that those who argue the loudest that people should accept the scientific basis for climate change refuse to have a conversation about the scientific basis that would prove or disprove the case for fracking.

Royal Bank of Scotland: Small Business Customers

David Hanson: What discussions he has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the conclusions of the recent Financial Conduct Authority report on the Royal Bank of Scotland and small business customers.

Margot James: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has frequent discussions with the Chancellor on a range of matters, including financial regulation. The Financial Conduct Authority has published a summary of Promontory’s skilled persons report, to which I think the right hon. Gentleman refers. The FCA is now considering the report’s conclusions, including whether there is any basis for further action.

David Hanson: Constituents of mine have, in good faith, used Government-based schemes such as the enterprise finance guarantee scheme to grow their businesses, only to find the Royal Bank of Scotland using the very  same scheme to close down their businesses. Given that there is a litany of such cases throughout that report, is it not now time that the Minister and the Treasury conducted a proper investigation and perhaps even a judge-led inquiry?

Margot James: The enterprise finance guarantee scheme was exactly designed to enable businesses to borrow when they lacked collateral, with taxpayer support. If a bank is closing down overdraft facilities to claim on the guarantee—as in the case to which I believe the right hon. Gentleman refers—that would clearly be a gross abuse of the scheme. Any evidence of that will certainly be looked at very carefully by my Department.

Vincent Cable: Does the Minister not agree that the response to the finding that 92% of the bank’s restructuring group’s small business customers were mistreated has been pathetic and is unworthy of a publicly owned institution?

Margot James: I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman hold fire until the Financial Conduct Authority has decided on what action it may still take. It is empowered to take action, and I totally agree with the sentiments behind his question.

Bill Esterson: What happened at RBS’s Global Restructuring Group is a scandal of the highest order. Businesses were ruined; families were torn apart; and people took their own lives. The Minister must know that the FCA cannot deliver justice for the GRG’s victims on its own, because most business banking is unregulated. I have asked Ministers this question six times already, and I will ask it a seventh time: will the Government set up a judge-led inquiry into RBS GRG, or do they have something to hide?

Margot James: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we have nothing to hide. I share the concerns about the practices of the Global Restructuring Group at RBS and the devastating impact on people’s businesses, which represent a lifetime’s work for many people. I am sure that we have not yet heard the last of this inquiry.

Leaving the EU: Car Industry

Alex Burghart: What steps his Department is taking to support the UK car industry after the UK leaves the EU.

Greg Clark: The UK’s automotive industry is a great British success story, and as I said earlier, the Prime Minister and I met senior executives last week and reiterated our determination to secure a Brexit deal that guarantees the sector’s competitiveness. I will continue to work closely with all companies in the sector.

Alex Burghart: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for mentioning Ford in an earlier answer, because Ford is a major employer in my constituency. What is his Department doing to ensure that this country is the epicentre for innovation in the car industry as we move out of the European Union?

Greg Clark: Through our industrial strategy, we have a clear focus on being the go-to place in the world for the future of mobility in all its different forms. Dunton in my hon. Friend’s constituency is home to Ford’s technical centre, which is obviously one of the major global forces in that future. It is particularly gratifying that Ford has chosen the UK to be the centre of its European operations for the future of mobility.

Social Care: Minimum Wage Back Payment

Nick Smith: What discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on providing funding to ensure minimum wage back payment in the social care sector.

Paula Sherriff: What discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on providing funding to ensure minimum wage back payment in the social care sector.

Margot James: I have worked closely with ministerial colleagues to implement a national minimum wage enforcement approach that protects the interests of social care workers and vulnerable service users. The Government recognise the financial pressures that some providers face, and we are exploring further options to minimise any impact on the sector. Any intervention would need to be proportionate, and the Government have opened discussions with the European Commission about issues relating to state aid.

Nick Smith: I thank the Minister for that answer, but how are the Government supporting individuals with personal budgets who could face bills of thousands of pounds in back payments?

Margot James: We recognise that such individuals can be among the most vulnerable in society, and we are working to ensure that that group receives the necessary help and support. We expect local authorities to work with Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to ensure the right outcome for such individuals, but it is only fair that the budgets provided to personal budget holders reflect their legal obligations to pay the national minimum wage to workers on sleep-in duty both now and when it comes to any arrears owing.

Paula Sherriff: If enforcement action results in the closure of or disruption to service providers, how will the Government guarantee that vulnerable people will not be left without services?

Margot James: I would like to reassure the hon. Lady that the new social care compliance scheme will give providers up to a year to identify what they owe to workers and will be supported by advice from HMRC. Employers who identify arrears at the end of the self-review period will have three months to pay workers, so the scheme is designed both to support workers and to ensure the continuation of the crucial services that providers perform.

Peter Aldous: The Government’s new interim compliance scheme, announced last week, unfortunately adds to the uncertainty facing the social  care sector. May I urge the Minister to do all she can to ensure that, as quickly as possible, the Government get back round the table with the sector to find an acceptable long-term solution?

Margot James: I assure my hon. Friend that we are working very hard across Government with the Department of Health and the Department for Communities and Local Government to continue our discussions with the Treasury about possible solutions to the long-term viability of certain providers.

Kevin Hollinrake: I welcome the Government’s efforts to try to find a permanent solution to sleep-in shifts. The situation arose from a change in guidance following an employment tribunal in 2014. Would it not be sensible to consider revisiting the legislation in this place simply to return to the pre-tribunal position?

Margot James: We have made it clear that we expect all employers to pay workers according to the law, including the national minimum wage, for sleep-in duties. It is not uncommon for employment law to be clarified in the courts and tribunals, and this issue has been the subject of a number of cases. Even if we were to do as my hon. Friend suggests—we will certainly not be revisiting the legislation—it would not have any impact on workers’ eligibility for historical back-pay liabilities.

James Frith: This week is Living Wage Week. Some sectors in the UK are better predisposed than others to paying higher wages, but the rising cost of living applies to all. What will the Minister do to incentivise businesses in all sectors to sign up as living wage employers?

Margot James: I applaud the work of the national Living Wage Foundation, but we have a crucial role to play in ensuring that Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs has the resources to enforce the minimum wage, where it needs enforcing. That is our priority, although obviously I respect the work of the Living Wage Foundation.

Tidal Lagoons

Richard Graham: What assessment he has made of the potential merits of the recommendations set out in the Hendry review on tidal lagoons.

Richard Harrington: As my hon. Friend knows, the issues raised by the review are complex. A lagoon programme could cost in the region of £50 billion. The costs of renewable energy are plummeting, and we need to consider the questions associated with deploying this technology in the marine environment. All programmes have to be considered with the following in mind: the cost, the export potential and the contribution to the green economy.

Richard Graham: The Hendry review was delivered on time by a distinguished former Conservative Energy Minister who started a sceptic and finished a convert, strongly recommending that the Government push ahead with a pilot project. Although none of us would want to see the Government rush into decisions of this kind—   a global first—what are the chances of a formal response before the review’s first anniversary in January? Does my hon. Friend agree that the Budget is an excellent opportunity for a positive announcement?

Richard Harrington: My hon. Friend may be frustrated, and I know the Government have yet to respond to the review, but as I have said this is an extremely complex issue and we need to ensure that we make the right decision. All I can say to him is that we will be publishing our response in due course.

Topical Questions

Paul Williams: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Greg Clark: Since we last met, my ministerial colleagues and I have brought three major pieces of legislation to the House: a draft Bill to cap consumer energy prices; new laws to ensure that every home and small business will be offered a smart meter; and the new Nuclear Safeguards Bill to maintain our nuclear safeguards as we leave the EU. We continue to develop new policy that will benefit businesses and wider society, and today we are publishing a call for evidence on Professor Dieter Helm’s independent review of energy. We have reaffirmed our position as a world leader in tackling climate change through the launch of the clean growth strategy, and I take this opportunity to invite all Members on both sides of the House to join us in celebrating Small Business Saturday, which is coming up on 2 December.

Paul Williams: Is the Secretary of State concerned that, although October’s figures show continued welcome manufacturing growth, almost half of the net jobs created in the UK since 2010 are in London and the south-east, where only a quarter of the population live?

Greg Clark: I would have thought that the hon. Gentleman would welcome the fact that jobs are being created in all parts of the United Kingdom and that we have the highest level of employment since records began. That is a signal of the success of the UK economy, but he is absolutely right that we want to make sure that every part of the United Kingdom reaches the height of prosperity it is capable of reaching, and through the industrial strategy we will have more to say about how we can propel that forward.

Wendy Morton: Businesses in my constituency and across the west midlands need the investment and the skills to continue to thrive and flourish. Will the Minister update me on the work the Government are doing in that regard?

Jo Johnson: We are investing in a world-class technical education system, growing apprenticeships and introducing T-levels from 2020 for 16 to 19-year-olds, backed by a further £500 million per year. We are also investing £170 million to create institutes of technology across all regions and £80 million for specialist national colleges to deliver higher-level technical education.

Rebecca Long-Bailey: Last week, the Secretary of State repeatedly refused to confirm, when pressed by the Select Committee, that the energy price cap would be in place by next winter. Media reports have also suggested that the Government have already told energy investors that the draft legislation will be ditched if they feel the big six power firms are doing enough to tackle high bills. I therefore ask the Secretary of State, in the hope he will today provide a clear answer, whether the energy price cap will be in place by the winter of 2018 and, if not, whether the media reports are true that there is actually no intention of introducing price cap legislation?

Greg Clark: I can assure the hon. Lady that there is every intention of introducing a price cap, and there is consensus in the House around that. We have published a Bill and it is being scrutinised by the Select Committee. As soon as it has finished that scrutiny, we will look for an opportunity to introduce it to the House.

Rebecca Long-Bailey: I am afraid that answer simply created even more ambiguity, so let us try a different topic. The Government scheme to deal with the social care back payment announced on 1 November has been cited as “inadequate” by many care businesses and organisations, as it does not address the fact that many providers simply cannot afford to pay due to funding cuts, and some workers will not be paid what they are duly owed until 31 March 2019. Mencap has stated that many providers will be reluctant to take part in the scheme as they feel they will be
“writing their own suicide note”.
Therefore, I ask the Secretary of State: will the Government commit the necessary funding in the Budget to avert a crisis in the care sector, which could see many businesses struggle to survive, impacting on already fragile care services, and leave thousands of care staff without the wages they are owed?

Greg Clark: As the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge (Margot James) has made clear, and as I believe the hon. Lady knows, this is a difficult and complex issue. We completely accept the need for confidence among the providers of care to some of the most vulnerable people in society, while recognising the legitimate claim, which has been upheld by the courts, of those who have worked in that sector. Bringing those two things together requires precision and care, so that this is robust and does not create further uncertainty if it were found not to be legally possible to advance it. That is why the interim proposal has been made, but I am happy to keep the hon. Lady informed.

Anna Soubry: Yesterday afternoon, we had an excellent debate in this Chamber about the benefits of European economic area and European Free Trade Association membership, with people on both sides of the Chamber supporting our continuing membership. I do not expect my right hon. Friend to pass comment on his own views on this matter, but I do know he will always champion the best interests of British business. To that end, will he undertake, in all the negotiations he is involved with at the highest level, to make sure that all options are kept open as to how we get a Brexit deal—that includes the EEA and EFTA?

Greg Clark: I represent strongly the views of the business community because they are absolutely vital for our continuing prosperity as a country. The whole of the business community wants to get the best possible deal for the UK, and the vast majority of Members were elected on a platform and a manifesto of obtaining that. I will be tireless in pressing the case for it.

John McNally: After years of the Scottish National party lobbying, the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy launched a review into limited partnerships, and we in the SNP welcome that. In the light of the Paradise papers, thousands of firms registered in Scotland will be forced to reveal their owners’ identities. When will the Government publish the full findings of the review?

Margot James: At last year’s international anti-corruption summit, we committed to introduce a register of beneficial ownership of overseas companies. We published a call for evidence in April, the responses to which are being analysed. We will publish a response that provides for legislation in due course.

John Penrose: Dieter Helm’s recently published “Cost of Energy Review” says that
“the prices of oil, gas and coal have fallen…contrary to the modelling and forecasting of both the Department of Energy & Climate Change…and the Committee on Climate Change”.
He means that however hard they try and however worthy their intentions, mandarins and regulators are rubbish at discovering or predicting energy prices. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the provisions for the draft Bill’s absolute energy price cap, which would require mandarins and regulators to meet twice a year to pick a number, would repeat the same mistakes so should be replaced by something more closely linked to the few competitive energy prices that already exist?

Greg Clark: I know what a great campaigner my hon. Friend has been on this issue. We have published the draft Bill, which includes our intentions, and I hope that he will give evidence while the Bill is being scrutinised. We are eager to hear his views, and we are eager to hear whether the Select Committee agrees with his analysis.

Chris Matheson: Does the Secretary of State accept that the true test of his industrial strategy will be how actively he and the Government intervene to protect manufacturing skills and jobs when companies such as BAE Systems, Bombardier or Vauxhall face crisis?

Greg Clark: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the Government, my ministerial team and I should be active in securing investment opportunities and continued employment by UK companies and international companies that invest in the UK, and we are. I do that tirelessly. In the case of Ellesmere Port, we have had discussions with Peugeot and it is interested, as we are, in investment in the new generation of vehicles, with which I know the hon. Gentleman is familiar.

Dr Caroline Johnson: I am working closely on investment in utilities with the Greater Lincolnshire local enterprise partnership,  which will shortly publish a report detailing areas of Lincolnshire in which infrastructure requires investment. One problem is that Western Power is prevented from making speculative investment by Ofgem. Can my hon. Friend the Minister tell me why there is apparently this regulatory barrier to investment and what she can do to help?

Claire Perry: I commend my hon. Friend and her local enterprise partnership for their work. We look forward to seeing that report and to having productive conversations. We do not want any barriers that impede economic growth in her constituency and region.

Ruth Cadbury: Net present value is the economic measurement generally held to provide the most robust assessment of all the costs and benefits of any proposed major infrastructure project. Would the Government ever support a major infrastructure project that, at its inception, was calculated to have a negative net economic benefit?

Greg Clark: One of the things that the House has correctly required of the Government is that we should take account of the impact on local economies—for example, on small businesses. That is something that has changed in the impact guidance, and it is right that it has.

Mike Wood: On the 100th anniversary of the communist revolution’s introduction of a system that impoverished and imprisoned tens of millions, what is the Department doing to promote the benefits of free markets for workers, consumers and society as a whole?

Greg Clark: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question, because the history and reputation of this country during the past 100 years, and especially during the past decade, has been based on having in this country a system of vigorous competition in which businesses compete not because they are guaranteed a position by the state but because they face pressure from competitors. That has introduced extraordinary prosperity that would be thrown away were we to adopt a different system, such as that proposed 100 years ago.

Grahame Morris: Will the Secretary of State assure the House of his Department’s commitment to enforce the national minimum wage in the maritime sector? Why have officials from his Department been unable to attend meetings of the cross-departmental legal working group on seafarers?

Margot James: The hon. Gentleman raises an important point about the national minimum wage and seafarers. We are looking into it and I will write to him with the latest position.

Martin Vickers: This week is Offshore Wind Week. The wind and renewables sector is vital to my constituency. Many young people are training to secure jobs in the industry, as is being highlighted by the apprenticeships event that will begin here shortly. What ongoing support will the Government give to young people entering the industry?

Claire Perry: I am sure that my hon. Friend, like me, celebrates the fact that there has been an unprecedented fall in the price of offshore wind in the most recent auction, proving that the policy making—at least in this case—actually worked. We look forward to further investment in the industry, and are working with the sector on a sector deal that will have to address the issue of skills and apprenticeships. It is a vital industry; there is much more to do and much more growth to come.

Rachel Reeves: Last year, a Whirlpool tumble dryer caused a devastating fire at Shepherd’s Bush Green after Whirlpool told customers that it was safe to continue using them, contrary to advice from the fire brigade. There are still 1 million of these potentially deadly tumble dryers in people’s homes. What does the Minister think about that and what is she doing to ensure that all electrical goods are safe, and recalled if they are not?

Margot James: The Government take product safety extremely seriously. We established a working group on product recalls and safety that reported in July, and we will respond shortly. We are already taking action in the areas that have given the hon. Lady cause for concern. Whirlpool has now managed to withdraw or modify more than 2 million of those machines to an unprecedented degree.

Steve Double: The Secretary of State will be aware that Newquay’s bid to be the location of the spaceport is backed by organisations right across Cornwall, including the LEP, the chamber of commerce, the wider business community and the local authority. Will he update the House on what progress has been made in this important development for the UK space sector?

Greg Clark: I will indeed. My hon. Friend is a great champion of Newquay’s bid. The shortlisting has taken place and announcements will be made very soon.

Diana R. Johnson: The Minister knows that the Red Arrows fly Hawks built at Brough, and they are great ambassadors for British aeronautical engineering and attracting export orders. But with the production line at Brough under threat, including those skilled jobs, is it not time for the Government to renew the contract for Hawks for the Red Arrows and, most importantly, to keep sovereign capability in this country?

Claire Perry: The hon. Lady is a great advocate for this and we discussed this matter during the recent urgent question. We want to do all we can to support the manufacturing future of that entire company, which is why we are focusing so much on trying to help it to get the overseas orders it needs.

Stephen Kerr: When does the Minister plan to respond to the Matthew Taylor review of employment practices in the modern economy?

Margot James: We are working on our response to the Taylor review’s recommendations now, and we will publish that response before the year’s end.

Stephen Kinnock: Imminent changes to the operation of the EU emissions trading system register are likely to invalidate UK-issued carbon allowances from the start of next year. These measures, which have been brought about by Brexit, will have a significant impact on the steel industry. Will the Minister let us know what contingency measures are being taken to mitigate this impact in the event that an agreement cannot be reached with the European Commission on this issue in time?

Claire Perry: The hon. Gentleman is right to raise this important issue. He will be reassured to know that there are active conversations going on between my Department and the European Commission. He presents the absolute worst-case scenario, which we are confident that we will not reach.

Several hon. Members: rose—

John Bercow: The other Conservative Members standing have been heard, but we have not heard from Ms Pow.

Rebecca Pow: Thank you, Mr Speaker. The House may be aware that 2017 is likely to be declared one of the top three warmest years on record. With that in mind, it is more important than ever to stick to our carbon commitments. Will the Minister kindly outline what objectives she has for the forthcoming UN climate change conference? Will consolidating our position as global leaders in this area be one of those objectives?

Claire Perry: I commend my hon. Friend for her tireless advocacy and leadership in the Conservative Environment Network and for the work she does on behalf of her constituents—Taunton Deane is very lucky. She and I share the aspiration to continue our global leadership role; indeed, the headline objective for the conference is about making everyone aware that there is no rowing back on the Paris agreement—in fact, we want momentum to accelerate. I will be using the conference to announce further investments and further approaches the UK is taking to push our world leadership position forward. If my hon. Friend can just be patient for a few more days, I am sure she will join me in celebrating those when we announce them.

Steve McCabe: The Committee on Climate Change and a range of respected experts all point out that the existing clean growth strategy will fail on the fifth carbon budget and on the Paris commitments. The Minister must have some additional measures in mind. What are they?

Claire Perry: The Committee on Climate Change said this set of policies was one of the most wide-ranging that had ever been put forward. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the budgets end in 10 and 15 years’ time, and we are currently on track to achieve 94% and 93% of the things we need to do, a decade out. I think it is pretty good odds that we will achieve them.

EXITING THE EU: SECTORAL ANALYSIS

John Bercow: Before we begin the urgent question in the name of Matthew Pennycook, I wish to emphasise to the House that it is narrowly focused. Colleagues will, I am sure, attend to the wording—indeed, I have already attended to the wording—of the hon. Gentleman’s urgent question, which is on the matter of when the Government intend to provide the Select Committee on Exiting the European Union with impact assessments arising from sectoral analyses carried out by Her Majesty’s Ministers. Questioning must focus on that matter; this is not an occasion for a general re-run of Brexit-related matters, of which I am sure there will be many examples in the days, weeks and months to come. I am sure that colleagues can expend their energies more than adequately on the terms which the hon. Gentleman has drawn.

Matthew Pennycook: (Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union if he will make a statement on when the Government intend to provide the Select Committee on Exiting the European Union with impact assessments arising from sectoral analyses carried out by Her Majesty’s Ministers.

Steven Baker: We have this morning laid a written ministerial statement on this issue, which sets out the timeline and nature of our response to last week’s motion. As the Government have made clear, it is not the case that there are 58 sectoral impact assessments. During the Opposition day debate, the Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr Walker), told the House:
“there has been some misunderstanding about what this sectoral analysis actually is. It is not a series of 58 economic impact assessments.”—[Official Report, 1 November 2017; Vol. 630, c. 887.]
The Secretary of State for Exiting the EU made the same point during his appearance before the Lords EU Committee on 31 October, and to the House at oral questions to the Department for Exiting the European Union on 2 November.
Let me clarify exactly what the sectoral analysis is. It is a wide mix of qualitative and quantitative analysis, contained in a range of documents developed at different times since the referendum. It means looking at 58 sectors to help to inform our negotiating positions. The analysis examines the nature of activity in the sectors and how trade is conducted with the EU currently, and in many cases considers the alternatives after we leave the EU, as well as looking at existing precedents.
Our analysis is constantly evolving and being updated, but it is not, and nor has it ever been, a series of impact assessments examining the quantitative impact of Brexit on these sectors. Given this, it will take the Government some time to collate and bring together this information in a way that is accessible and informative to the Committee. We will provide this information to the Committee as soon as possible. We have made plain to the House authorities that we currently expect this to be in no more than three weeks.

Matthew Pennycook: Here we are again, Mr Speaker. As you will know, Members from both sides of the House have repeatedly requested that the 58 sectoral analyses  undertaken by the Government be released. On each occasion prior to last Wednesday’s debate on our motion, Ministers argued that publication of these analyses would compromise the UK’s negotiating position. On no occasion did Ministers argue or imply that the information did not exist as discrete documents, yet yesterday, in his letter to the Chair of the Brexit Committee, that was precisely what the Secretary of State argued. Can the Minister tell the House why, if the information that Members have repeatedly called for does not exist as a series of discrete impact assessments, a clear impression has been allowed to develop over many months that it does?
In a response dated 29 September 2017 to a freedom of information request submitted by my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra) requesting details about the analyses and their publication, the Department’s FOI Team stated:
“the Department for Exiting the European Union…holds the information you have requested”.
Yet in the Secretary of State’s letter to the Chair of the Select Committee, he implies that it will take time to collate and bring together the information because some of it is held by other Government Departments. Can the Minister confirm that the information given by his Department’s FOI Team on 29 September is correct and that the Department holds the information? If not, why was the Department’s FOI team permitted to state that the information is held? If the Department holds some of the information but not all of it, what is preventing the information that is available from being released to the Brexit Committee immediately?
This farce has dragged on for far too long. Ministers cannot use semantics and doublespeak to avoid the clear instruction that this House has given. There can be no further delay; Ministers just need to get on with it.

Steven Baker: The hon. Gentleman says that an impression has been allowed to develop. It was never our purpose to allow such an impression to develop. As I have explained, the Government carry out a wide range of analysis across these sectors in order to inform our negotiating position. Our purpose is to develop our negotiating capital. Our purpose is not to create the kinds of stories that the hon. Gentleman seems to be pursing. The Government hold a wide range of information across a wide range of documents. The information is provided by Departments and collated by my Department, but what it does not comprise, and has never comprised, is quantitative forecasts of impact on those sectors. I think that the public will look at Labour Members today, look at what they are asking for, look at the kind of narrative they are trying to create, and ask, “Whose side are they on?”

John Whittingdale: As vice-Chairman of the Committee on Exiting the European Union, I thank my hon. Friend for his answer. The Select Committee has not actually discussed this matter formally, but from my own point of view, may I tell him that what he has said to the House this afternoon seems to be entirely reasonable?

Steven Baker: I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend. I believe that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has spoken to the Chairman of the Committee, from whom I am sure we will hear, and I believe that a further meeting has been scheduled.

Stephen Gethins: It is absolutely astonishing that more than 500 days on from the referendum these documents are not yet prepared. If the Government are scrabbling them together in three weeks’ time, woe betide us all. Have they been shared with the devolved Administrations, as the Secretary of State intimated to the Committee? Can the Minister confirm what other assessments have been made about the regional impacts of leaving the European Union?

Steven Baker: First and foremost, this criticism comes from a party that decided to leave the United Kingdom without determining what currency it would use. The sectoral analysis has been discussed with the devolved Administrations and the Joint Ministerial Committee, and we will give careful consideration, as and when information is released to the Select Committee, to how we share that information with the devolved Administrations. Once again, I reiterate that the information that we have does not comprise now, and never has done, quantitative forecasts of impact—not on sectors and not on any region.

John Baron: This is a storm in a teacup. Given the extent of the analysis, the timeframe seems reasonable, because if an incomplete picture was presented, the Opposition would be the first to criticise and to suggest that we were hiding something. I also suggest to the Minister that we should not want to weaken our negotiating hand.

Steven Baker: I am grateful to my hon. Friend—he is exactly right. Our purpose as a nation is to go forward and maximise our negotiating capital to deliver the best possible deal for all people in the United Kingdom.

Hilary Benn: We now know what this material consists of, but I am concerned to read in a letter that the Secretary of State sent me that Ministers now intend
“to collate and bring together this information in a way that is accessible and informative for the Committee.”
I would expect the Committee to receive these documents in the form they were in when the motion was carried—in other words, unamended. As I made clear in my letter to the Secretary of State, I think it is for the Committee to decide in what form they are published. We are conscious of our responsibilities, in the same way as the whole House is. Can the Minister therefore confirm that that is what will now happen, and that there will be no further undue delay?

Steven Baker: The material that we hold includes commercially sensitive material and material that is relevant to our negotiating position. The House has previously voted not to release information that would be prejudicial to our negotiating position. If we were to give the right hon. Gentleman and the Committee the original reports commissioned at the beginning of the Department’s life, he would find that that material was incomplete and out of date. It is our intention to satisfy the motion by providing to him information that is relevant, timely and correct.

Nicky Morgan: The Minister does himself no favours by turning into a partisan matter a perfectly legitimate request by this sovereign  Parliament for information about the most important negotiations to affect this country for decades. In the Secretary of State’s letter to the Chair of the Brexit Committee, he talks about
“a wide mix of qualitative and quantitative analysis”.
Presumably, one part of that is the model that the Chancellor referred to when he gave evidence to the Treasury Committee recently. He said that there is a cross-departmental model that
“looks at impacts on different parts of our economy”.
My understanding is that that model is available immediately. Will it be disclosed immediately?

Steven Baker: The Treasury model to which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor referred is not contained within the documents, which I have carefully studied.

Ben Bradshaw: The Minister says that there is nothing of significance in these documents and that they do not measure any impact. One might ask: what is the point of them, on the biggest single issue facing our country in our lifetimes? On the timing, Mr Speaker, you were very clear last week after the vote. You talked about days, not weeks, and there was also a discussion of Ministers being in contempt of Parliament. Perhaps you might like to remind the Minister what the potential sanctions are for a Minister who is found to be in contempt of Parliament.

Steven Baker: I think that the right hon. Gentleman has put the words “nothing of significance” in my mouth. I do not think that I have ever said that. We are saying to the House that this sectoral analysis does not contain quantitative projections of impact. As for the right hon. Gentleman’s final question, I think that is a matter for you, Mr Speaker.

Bernard Jenkin: The motion that the House passed last week without objection referred to
“the impact assessments arising from those analyses”,
in reference to the previous list. I can well imagine that these assessments are scattered around different Departments, and that different officials are looking at various bits of work and saying, “Does this count as part of one of these assessments or not?” I think it would have been unconscionable for the Government to come to the House and suggest that they were not going to comply with the motion or release this information, but may I suggest that there should be some private dialogue with the highly respected Chair of the Brexit Committee, on Privy Council terms, about how to resolve the matter without it becoming a matter of embarrassment that disrupts the negotiations?

Steven Baker: It is our intention to comply with the will of the House, but we cannot release what we do not have. We will bring forward the material that is appropriate, timely and up to date, and that will inform the Committee. Steps have already been taken to carry forward the appropriate meetings.

Mary Creagh: In response to detailed questioning at the Environmental Audit Committee last week, Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Ministers revealed the existence of sectoral analyses for the waste  and chemicals sectors. Given that those two analyses exist and have been read by Ministers, what is preventing their immediate publication?

Steven Baker: The reports that I have read on waste and on chemicals date back to the origins of the Department and so, as I suggested earlier, are now out of date and do not reflect our current thinking. We wish to inform the Committee with the latest information.

Anna Soubry: Unlike the Minister, I attended the entire debate. I have gone back on my phone to look at the words of the Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr Walker), and I make it absolutely clear—the Hansard record of the debate is absolutely clear—that the nuts and bolts of the debate were about redaction. The argument that the Government advanced was that some material in the papers would be commercially sensitive and might have an impact on the negotiations. Will the Minister please take this matter seriously? This is a gross contempt of this place. The Government were specifically asked what, if they were not going to vote against the motion, was their problem. Disclose this material, and disclose it properly and quickly.

Steven Baker: My right hon. Friend is being perhaps unnecessarily unkind to me. I am sure that I did attend the entire debate, although I might have slipped out briefly. Perhaps I should watch the entire video over the weekend, but we will see. I would say to her that there has been no suggestion of redaction from the Treasury Bench, and certainly not during the course of that debate. That came from the Opposition Front Bench, when—

Jenny Chapman: Not true.

Steven Baker: The hon. Lady says that is not true, but the record will show that when the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) was standing at the Dispatch Box, in dilating on his experience as Director of Public Prosecutions, he offered redaction, gisting and summaries—[Interruption.] He did that in his opening speech, whatever the hon. Lady may say.

Pat McFadden: There are times when a Government have the stench of death about them. They are leaderless and directionless, and we learn today that their defence is that they are also contentless. Most concerning of all is the Minister’s attempt to come to the House today and say that those who ask for this information should have their patriotism questioned. This will not stand, and it cannot be allowed to stand. The House gave the Minister an instruction, so my request to him today is to show a modicum of competence—in this week, of all weeks, for the Government —and pass these studies to the Committee, without redaction, as soon as possible.

Steven Baker: We have been given an instruction and we are seeking to comply with it earnestly. I would say to the right hon. Gentleman that there is absolutely no  question of being content-free. We have a large amount of content, but we need to draw it together and present it to the Committee in a form that is useful. On his other point, it bears repeating that it is time for the House to come together and strive in the national interest to implement the referendum result, not to seek anything that would undermine our negotiating capital.

Desmond Swayne: When the papers are published, will they inform the negotiations in any way? In that respect, does the Minister sometimes wonder whose side Opposition Members are on?

Steven Baker: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. It is very important that we in this House do not do the work of our negotiating partners for them. We wish to have a deep and special partnership, and to go forward in a spirit of friendship, but it is not our place to do an analysis of our own negotiating capital for our partners.

Alan Brown: I actually want to commend the Minister, as I thought it was impossible for this Government to get more incompetent but they are doing a very good job of it. When they release the data, will they explain why, if they have undertaken all this analysis, none of it is quantitative? That does not bear any credence whatsoever, because there is no point undertaking an analysis without checking what the impact will be.

Steven Baker: I am very happy that I now have so many hon. Friends from Scotland, which is a statement about what the Scottish people think of the competence of the hon. Gentleman’s party. In so far as there is quantitative analysis in the documents, which I have carefully studied, that is a statement of the facts as they were known at the time, not a projection into the future.

Christopher Chope: Most fair-minded people would accept that it is reasonable that some of this material may not be available until three weeks have expired, but there must be some of the material that could be made available now or sooner than in three weeks. Will my hon. Friend assure the House that he will do his best to make available soon that material which could be supplied before the three-week deadline?

Steven Baker: It is our intention to make available a coherent and up-to-date set of information within three weeks.

Heidi Alexander: I hesitate to ask this question, because I have an image in my mind of the Minister rocking up to the office of my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) with carrier bags full of paper and asking him to sift through them. Nevertheless, will the Minister assure me that when the documentation is made available, it will include comparative information about the sectoral impact of the different forms of Brexit that the Government have considered but discounted?

Steven Baker: The hon. Lady asks an interesting question. It is precisely because we wish to avoid dumping unnecessary information on the Committee that we want to take the time necessary to bring together the information in an  appropriate form—[Interruption.] Well, that was what the hon. Lady said. She asked for comparative economic forecasts, but I have already said repeatedly that this material does not include quantitative economic forecasts.

Edward Leigh: What the Minister has said is perfectly reasonable, but I urge him to release the documents in full as quickly as possible, as redactions only enflame interest. I have lived through many of these rows, and once such documents are published, they are often found to be very long and boring. When Parliament gets itself into a fine passion about this sort of thing, the travelling is often more fun than arriving.

Steven Baker: On my hon. Friend’s final point, having carefully read the initial analysis, I think I can say with some certainty—[Hon. Members: “Oh, we have some analysis!”] I say to SNP Members that, as I have already told the House, I have read the initial round of analysis from the beginning of the life of the Department.
I can say to my hon. Friend that, in this case, the arrival will indeed be far less interesting than the journey.

Seema Malhotra: The House will be absolutely staggered to hear Ministers say today that it is not the case that 58 sectoral analyses exist. In his evidence to the Select Committee, the Secretary of State said that the Prime Minister had seen the summaries, and that they comprised excruciating detail. In its response to my freedom of information request, the Department said that the initial exercise had concluded and, as such, all of the studies referred to had been completed. Will the Minister explain exactly what the Prime Minister saw, given that the Department does not have the studies, and could the studies—as referred to, perhaps, in the initial exercise, and as shown, I suspect, to the Prime Minister—be released to the Select Committee today?

Steven Baker: The hon. Lady is conflating various terms. There is certainly a sectoral analysis; what there is not is a quantitative impact analysis forecasting the future. It might help the House if I repeat what I said earlier. The analysis thus far has been a wide mix of qualitative and quantitative analysis, contained in a range of documents developed at different times since the referendum. The analysis examines the nature of activity in the sectors and how trade is conducted with the EU currently in those sectors, and in many cases it considers the alternatives after we leave, as well as looking at existing precedents.

Peter Bone: The House has clearly voted for these papers to be released. My Whips advised me not to vote against that, so they have to be released. The Minister is trying to be helpful in providing additional information. I would say to him that that is not what the House requires. It requires lots of cardboard boxes with the information to be dumped on the Select Committee for it to look at. The Select Committee will then decide what, if anything, should be published.

Steven Baker: I am very grateful indeed to my hon. Friend, but I would say to him that the information we have includes commercially sensitive information, information that is material to our negotiating capital  and advice to Ministers. The House must be very careful not to establish precedents that it could regret in due course.

Tom Brake: The Minister’s explanation for the delay is laughable and was not used in rejecting my freedom of information request two weeks ago. His explanation smacks of cover up and smokescreen. He questioned which side the Opposition were on. We are on the side of the public. When he deigns to publish these reports, will he also publish a report that the public can have, setting out precisely the cost of the Brexit that he so enthusiastically endorses?

Steven Baker: As I have not ceased saying, we are not in possession of quantitative studies forecasting the impact of leaving the EU. What the public deserves is to have this House pull together to deliver a successful result, which requires us to maximise our negotiating capital by not releasing information that would be prejudicial to the future of the country.

Mike Wood: Although these analyses do not contain sectoral impact assessments, they may contain sensitive and confidential information, so will the Minister engage with the Chairman of the Select Committee to ensure that the information in these reports is handled appropriately with the public and the Committee?

Steven Baker: As I understand it, a meeting has already been arranged between the Secretary of State and the Chairman of the Committee to do just that.

Kate Hoey: I am sure that the public will, on the whole, use common sense and agree that this timing is reasonable. May I ask the Minister to make it very clear that, whatever is in these documents that we will be sitting up all night to read when they are published, it will make no change whatever to the policy of this country—that we are leaving the European Union, the single market and the customs union?

Steven Baker: I am very grateful to the hon. Lady, and I agree with her. The Government’s policy follows naturally from the UK’s democratic decision to leave the European Union. We will take back control of our laws, our borders, our money and our trade policy, and I am confident that we will make a success of it.

Richard Graham: Mr Speaker, you have said that this particular question should focus on the issue of when, and the Minister has said within three weeks. During that period, the Select Committee will be able to have a proper debate about what exactly we want to see and in what format. Those of us who are going to Brussels this afternoon will have the chance to ask Mr Verhofstadt what plans the European Union Parliament has to make the same demands to the European Union Commission, and to ask Monsieur Barnier what plans the Commission has to provide the same answers to the same demands. Surely there is no one in this House who would want to see us publish information that would damage this nation in negotiations with another party.

Steven Baker: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I agree with what he said.

Wes Streeting: It really is a bit rich for those on the Government Benches to ask which side we are on when this whole exercise from start to finish has been one of party political management over the national interest. The question is: party interest or national interest—which side are they on?
On the specific issue of timing, I am on the side of British businesses, which have warned the Treasury Committee that, before Christmas, some sectors will have to take potentially irreversible decisions. That position worsens in quarter one of next year in major sectors of our economy. Is three weeks really a reasonable delay? What can possibly be a reasonable explanation for such important and critical information not to be held in a way that is readily available and readily understood?

Steven Baker: The hon. Gentleman refers to an exercise in party management, but I have to tell him that, over the past two years, I have very much enjoyed working with members of Labour leave—and, indeed, Liberal leave. Right across this country, people of every party allegiance have wanted to resolve this question. He refers to businesses: of course, we continually engage with businesses—indeed, I met representatives of the chemical sector yesterday. He asks whether three weeks is reasonable. The answer is yes, for the reasons that I have given.

Tom Pursglove: Given all the outrage that we are hearing in the Chamber today and further to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham), is my hon. Friend aware of any requests from the Opposition for those EU sectoral documents?

Steven Baker: No, I am not aware of any such request.

David Lammy: The Minister confirmed in a response to me on 13 September that the Department had the analyses. He has confirmed today that he has seen the analyses. He then said that there is no quantitative work that casts its eye into the future. The question in response to that is: why has that work on such a critical issue not been done by his Department? He has not explained that. Surely he is in contempt of the House and we should repurpose the Tower to accommodate him and his Department heads.

Steven Baker: I refer the right hon. Gentleman to a range of answers that I have already given.

Mims Davies: The Minister has confirmed that the sectoral analyses will need to be released in relevant time and will need to have the correct information. Does he agree that resolving this matter to the satisfaction of the whole House and this country is most important and that long-term damage to the UK is certainly what nobody should be seeking?

Steven Baker: As I have said during the course of this debate, members of the Government are parliamentarians first and we do wish to satisfy the House. I say to my hon. Friend that our first priority as a Department is securing the long-term future of this country, and it is to that end that we will bend all our work.

Caroline Lucas: Does the Minister recognise that, with his statement today, he really has turned farce into a new art form? When he asks what side we are on, I say that we on the Opposition Benches are on the side of the 29 million workers whose livelihoods absolutely depend on the impact of Brexit on the UK economy. Will he recognise that he is treating not only this House but the British public with contempt?

Steven Baker: I will tell the House what is turning farce into an art form: it is blogging about the Greek debt crisis under the hashtag #thisisacoup and then supporting our continued membership of the European Union, as the hon. Lady has done. That is what takes the public for fools. I say to her that we are all on the side of the British public. The UK took a democratic decision to leave the European Union, and we will now carry through that decision.

Michael Tomlinson: When these documents are released as a result of the Opposition day motion, a cheap asset will have been handed to our negotiating partners within the EU. When the Minister implements the motion of this House, will he take as much time as is necessary to ensure that at least he and the Secretary of State continue to act in the national interest?

Steven Baker: We will continue to act in the national interest as we seek to satisfy the House and this motion. It is to that end that the Secretary of State will be meeting the Chairman of the Select Committee.

Louise Ellman: People are increasingly concerned about jobs and the national health service. The Minister has given some very confusing information in his answers today. Who will be the censor of what MPs and the public are allowed to know about these issues of national importance?

Steven Baker: This Government have a proud record on jobs and on the NHS and we will continue to give both issues the first importance.

Matt Warman: My constituents, more than most, want the Government to get on with delivering Brexit. They told me that they were saddened that this House had voted as it did because it does not help our negotiating position. What they would like this House and the Minister’s Department officials to get on with doing is negotiating the best possible deal rather than spending time facilitating the whims of this House. [Interruption.]

John Bercow: Order. There is a very unseemly atmosphere in the Chamber. I understand the rising passions on the subject, but, as colleagues will know, I regularly visit schools across the country and conduct Skype sessions with school students. One of the most frequent questions put to me is: why do people feel the need to bawl at each other? We should set a better example to the next generation of leaders.

Steven Baker: I listened carefully to my hon. Friend and I say to him that officials and Ministers will have to spend some time on this work over the next three weeks, which will of course distract them from the negotiation.  That is regrettable, but we take seriously the motion that the House has passed and, in the way that I have set out, we are seeking to comply with it.

Jack Dromey: This is outrageous! Whose side are we on? We are on the side of the truth being told; we are on the side of the British people; we are on the side of British business; we are on the side of British workers. Is it not the case that the Minister is simply making it up as he goes along, and treating Parliament and the people of Britain with utter contempt?

Steven Baker: No, that is not the case.

Catherine West: Is the Minister forgetting that, this time in one week, we will have 300 or 400 amendments before the House? Does he believe that this is a good way to start the Committee stage of European Union (Withdrawal) Bill?

Steven Baker: I am very conscious of the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill coming forward, and I would like to begin Committee stage in a positive spirit of collaboration in order to deliver in the national interest. I have sought today to give straightforward answers to the questions that we have been asked, and I stand by what I have said.

Ian Murray: This is turning into the Government equivalent of the dead parrot sketch. The Minister says that releasing the information could compromise the Government’s negotiating position, yet he could not be bothered to turn up to the House to vote the motion down. The Secretary of State for Scotland said at Scotland Office questions just last Wednesday that a sectoral analysis of Brexit’s impact on Scotland’s economy existed and had been shared with the Scottish Government. Does it or does it not exist? When will the Minister release that information?

Steven Baker: As I have said throughout the urgent question, we are not in possession of quantitative forecasts of the impact of Brexit. We are in possession of sectoral analysis, and we will work on that to satisfy the motion.

Chris Bryant: It is very simple. Parliament has told the Government to hand over the documents to the Select Committee. The Government accept that the resolution of the House is binding and that they will have to do that. They accept that the things exist because the Minister says that he has read them all and that the Prime Minister has read their outlines. It is very simple: the Minister has to hand them over to the Committee in a timely fashion. However, he seems to think that, in the meantime, he can rewrite them all because they are not good enough. That is not good enough. It is all very well for him to smirk and sneer at our patriotism, but if he holds the House in contempt, he holds the British public in contempt.

Steven Baker: There is no question of our holding the House in contempt. We are seeking earnestly to deliver to the House what has been requested. I say again that I have read the initial analysis, which Departments conducted at the beginning of our Department’s work. It is necessary to hand to the Select Committee not out-of-date, multiple  documents produced at different times that are not representative of our latest thinking. We will therefore bring together the right information to provide to the Select Committee.

Mike Gapes: Listening to the Minister and his slippery evasions makes me question why the Department and he as a Minister exist at all. What is the point of the Department if it is not doing its job?

John Bercow: Order. The hon. Gentleman is an extremely versatile and dextrous parliamentarian. He should not accuse the Minister of “slippery evasions” because there is a connotation there of alleged dishonesty, which the hon. Gentleman, who is normally an equable and good-natured fellow, should withdraw. He has articulated the thrust of his point. Withdraw.

Mike Gapes: I am happy to withdraw, Mr Speaker.

Steven Baker: Mr Speaker, I am most grateful. I reiterate that I am confident that I have answered those questions directly. The purpose of our Department is to deliver a successful exit from the European Union. I know that the hon. Gentleman nobly opposes that cause, as he has long done, but I have to say to him that we will continue to work with all our might to deliver a successful exit from the EU that works for everyone.

Clive Efford: The quantitative assessment that counts is that of the British people. They determined at the general election that the Conservatives should not have an overall majority in this House. That is why a majority of this House demanded that the Minister make the documents available to the Select Committee. It is not beyond the Minister’s wit to negotiate with the Select Committee Clerks how confidential information may be handled and kept confidential. He should proceed on that basis and negotiate the handling of the documents. Exactly what does he fear that Select Committee members will do with the confidential information?

Steven Baker: As I explained earlier, I understand that the Secretary of State has made arrangements to meet the Chairman of the Select Committee to discuss those matters.

Justin Madders: We are currently fighting for the survival of the Vauxhall car plant in my constituency. I am working with the local enterprise partnership and others to come up with a plan for the future. Of course, Brexit is a huge part of that. Will the Minister share as much as he can as soon as he can with my LEP of any impact analysis he has seen for the automotive sector?

Steven Baker: We would like to get on with delivering the best possible deal for the hon. Gentleman’s constituents and the whole country. That is why we have constantly sought to get on to talking about the future relationship. I undertake to visit that plant with him as the business of the House allows.

James Frith: We are seeing astonishing, dizzying theatre from the Government. We have had all sorts of Brexit before us: we are now seeing  “improv Brexit”—improvising, making it up as they go along, with no tangible appreciation that, away from here, Brexit is playing out in everyday lives and there is a thirst for practical guidance. Three weeks feels like enough time to make it up, from “We shall not publish” to “It is not the case that these documents exist”. What does the Government’s quantitative analysis actually quantify?

Steven Baker: As I said in answer to a previous question, the quantitative analysis in the documents that we have and that I have studied reflects conditions at the time they were written.

ISRAEL: MEETINGS

Kate Osamor: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the circumstances surrounding her meetings in Israel in August 2017.

Alistair Burt: I start by explaining that the Secretary of State is on a pre-arranged Government visit to Africa—[Interruption.] She is currently in the air. She is on a pre-arranged visit to Africa, to focus on how we are breaking down barriers to trade, helping African countries achieve their development ambitions, reducing dependence on aid and helping build Britain’s trading partners of the future.
I welcome this opportunity to update the House on the Secretary of State’s trip to Israel earlier this year, and I appreciate the hon. Lady’s question. The Secretary of State made a public statement yesterday. In that, she explained that she had the opportunity to meet a number of people and organisations in Israel. A list of who she met and what was covered was published in yesterday’s statement.
The Secretary of State realises in hindsight that those meetings were not arranged following the usual procedures, and she has apologised for that. The Foreign Office has said that UK interests were not damaged or affected by the meetings on that visit. I therefore hope that hon. Members will agree that now she has made that apology and published details of the meetings, we should accept that and refocus on our vital work of tackling extreme poverty and humanitarian crises across the world.

Kate Osamor: I thank the Minister for being here, but it is simply unacceptable that the Secretary of State is not here before the House to answer this question and explain herself.
The British public are outraged that the Secretary of State held 12 secret meetings in Israel, including with Prime Minister Netanyahu, without telling either the Foreign Office or the Prime Minister, and was accompanied by a pro-Israeli lobbyist. She then misled the British public with comments on Friday that she finally corrected yesterday. It has now emerged that the Prime Minister met her Israeli counterpart last week without even knowing about the secret meeting in August.
Today we learned that the Secretary of State has applied pressure to her Department to divert humanitarian funding to the Israeli army in the Golan Heights. Will the Minister tell the House exactly what was discussed in those secret meetings, and exactly what pressure the Secretary of State applied on her Department when she returned to the UK?
It is hard to think of a more black and white case of breaking the ministerial code of conduct, but rather than change the Minister, the Prime Minister somehow decided last night that the ministerial code itself needed changing.
We have a Prime Minister who has lost her authority and her control of the classroom. Does the Minister accept that it is time the Secretary of State either faces a Cabinet Office investigation, or does the decent thing and resigns?

Alistair Burt: First, I repeat that the Secretary of State is already on her way to Africa on a pre-arranged visit. She is already flying and it is not possible for her to deal with the question, but that is why I am here. The Secretary of State published a statement yesterday, with an apology.
Let me take the hon. Lady’s questions as she put them. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office was informed of the Secretary of State’s visit during the course of the visit, but not before. The Secretary of State has been very clear and absolutely contrite. Her statement yesterday recognises that of course she should have informed the Foreign Office before the visit, but she did not. That is why the statement was made and that is why she has apologised.
In the statement, she also gave full details of the meetings she had. They are not verbatim accounts, but she has given details of who she saw and the subjects that were discussed, which I think is quite appropriate. I do not think that that means they were particularly secret meetings, particularly as the Foreign Office was aware, during the course of the visit, that she had been seeing people in Israel.
On the ministerial code of conduct, my right hon. Friend the International Development Secretary has apologised to the Prime Minister for her handling of this matter. The Prime Minister has accepted her apology. The Foreign Office was aware of her visit to Israel while it was under way. The Foreign Office is also clear that UK interests were not damaged or affected by the meetings on this visit. The Prime Minister regards the matter as closed.
I would like to make a couple more points, if I may. Let us look at who my right hon. Friend met: leading politicians; an emergency humanitarian aid non-governmental organisation; Pears Programme for Global Innovation; and a group that works on water, farming, solar and hospital projects in Africa; she visited Save a Child’s Heart to talk about a co-existence project; the Galilee International Management Institute and held a meeting with a group of start-ups with a focus on Africa. Does the hon. Lady think that she should not have met those people? If I had been in Israel on a two-day visit, I would have wanted a programme just like this.

Diane Abbott: You would have told the ambassador.

Alistair Burt: I would have told the ambassador—of course I would. But if we look at the quality of the meetings, who my right hon. Friend saw and what her job is, they are all absolutely pertinent.
One last point if I may, Mr Speaker. The hon. Member for Edmonton raised the question of pressure on the Department afterwards. As the Minister responsible for development in that area, I can say that two issues were raised by the Secretary of State on her return. One related to aid currently being provided by the Israeli army for those in Syria who could not get medical assistance or cross the border to get it from the Israeli Defence Forces. The second issue she raised was whether there was room for more co-operation between the UK and the Israeli aid agency, as we look at issues right across the region.
We looked at both issues. The Department’s view is that aid to the IDF in the Golan Heights is not appropriate —we do not do that—and that was the advice given to  the Secretary of State. We are looking hard to see if there is room to co-operate with the Israeli aid organisation, as we do with others around the region. There was no pressure put on the Department. They were perfectly pertinent questions to raise on her return. She raised them in an entirely the proper way with the Department and with me, and we are dealing with it. She is doing her job as Development Secretary. That is what she is doing today and that is what the meetings disclose.

Hugo Swire: The spotlight is on the proceedings and behaviour of all of us in this place as never before. What people want is transparency and accountability. Does my right hon. Friend not agree that it is time, finally, to address the issue of privileged access, lobbying and funding if we are not to have this repeated time and time again? Does he not agree that all organisations involved in active lobbying of Members of Parliament and Ministers should open their books and be entirely transparent, so that we can see who is lobbying whom and who is providing the funding?

Alistair Burt: Questions about lobbying and transparency are really important for the House and for Ministers, which is why it was important for the Secretary of State to disclose who she was with and the organisations she went to see. Wider questions about lobbying and funding are for others, but I think the Secretary of State has, having made the statement yesterday to disclose what she had done, been entirely transparent in relation to her visit.

Stephen Gethins: I share the astonishment of the hon. Member for Edmonton (Kate Osamor) that the Secretary of State is not here to defend herself. It would appear that the Government have such little credibility left that Ministers are now freelancing on foreign policy. I wonder if the Minister will answer these questions. Will he confirm whether the Chancellor was briefed about the outrageous development that UK aid funding was to be given to the Israeli army? What action is the Prime Minister taking to ensure the matter is investigated in terms of the ministerial code? Does he have faith that the Secretary of State still has the ability and credibility to carry on?

Alistair Burt: No, I do not think the Chancellor was informed, because it never became a policy, or had the chance to become a policy, to fund the Israeli Defence Forces in the Golan Heights. Secondly, as I said a moment ago, as far as the ministerial code is concerned, the Prime Minister has seen the Secretary of State, who has explained and apologised again for not informing people beforehand. The Prime Minister regards the matter as closed, but she is looking to tighten up the ministerial code to make it very clear what the process should be. Do I have full confidence in my right hon. Friend? Of course I do.

Desmond Swayne: When I met the Israeli Deputy Prime Minister, he stormed out of the meeting. The Secretary of State got a much more cordial reception. Is it just because she is a lady?

Alistair Burt: I am not sure if it is appropriate for me to answer on either how my right hon. Friend was treated or the reception for the Secretary of State for International Development, but I am quite sure that both meetings were perfectly proper and appropriate.

Ben Bradshaw: The Minister read out an incredibly long list of meetings that the Secretary of State held in Israel on what I thought was supposed to be a family holiday. Did she have any meetings with the Palestinian side? The Minister will, as middle east Minister, appreciate the importance of a wholly balanced approach to the middle east peace process and not a one-sided one. If she is in the air now, she could have delayed her departure, couldn’t she, and shown some courtesy to this House. It is very difficult for us to know, Mr Speaker, whether the Secretary of State for International Development or the Foreign Secretary has the worse relationship with accuracy. If we had a Prime Minister who was not so weak, both would have been sacked.

Alistair Burt: The Secretary of State says, in her very full statement yesterday, that she was on a family holiday between 13 and 25 August, which is 12 days. She took two days out of that holiday to have a series of meetings with Israeli politicians and political people, and a number of different charities, including, as I said earlier, Save a Child’s Heart, which works with Palestinian children as well as Israeli children. The list of meetings has been published. I do not see that she specifically had a set of meetings with those representing Palestinian interests, but of course she has met those on other occasions. It is a full disclosure of work. She had two days off in the middle of a holiday. I suspect that is not particularly unusual for Ministers, who sometimes do other things. But you would, of course, let the Foreign Office know in advance, which my right hon. Friend did not, and that was the error for which she has apologised. The meetings were really pertinent to her work, to our work and to British interests.

Bob Blackman: Given that Foreign Office Ministers and International Development Ministers now share responsibilities across the two Departments, and that we have two Secretaries of State, is there not a need to clarify the position for Ministers visiting particular countries—whether the Foreign Office or DFID is informed —so that we clear this matter up once and for all?

Alistair Burt: Having been around a bit, I would hope that the ministerial code makes it clear what the sequence of events ought to be. Most Ministers should let the local embassy know they are going to be there, in case something happens while they are—that is reasonable practice, including sometimes for holidays. Certainly, if a Minister is going to have meetings in a country, they need to make it very clear that they want to have them and get them set up. That is the appropriate process. Again, my right hon. Friend has said very clearly that she did not do that, and she has apologised, and I suspect that someone will not be doing something like this for a very long time.

Chris Bryant: It is a real shame that the Minister is acting as an air raid shelter here—I think if he reflects later, he will not be proud of what he has done today. The honest truth is that if the Secretary of State had said in this House what she said in public last week, when she misled the public, by now she would have been referred to the Committee on Standards. I honestly say to the Minister: either there is a Government with collective responsibility in which people talk to one another before they potentially meet significant people in other Governments, or there is not a Government,  and if there is not a Government, it is not a question of whether the Secretary of State should resign, but a question of whether they should all resign.

Alistair Burt: To return to the core of the issue, my right hon. Friend accepts that she should have discussed the visit before she went and made it very clear what she was going to do. In relation to what she said to The Guardian last week, again she has made it clear that her words left room for misinterpretation and misunderstanding, which is why she issued the statement yesterday and is clarifying matters. She regrets not being clearer in her language, which is appropriate, and I think it perfectly reasonable that I have been asked to do this today, given that she is continuing her work as International Development Secretary abroad and so could not be here.

Crispin Blunt: I welcome the Secretary of State’s apology. My right hon. Friend the Minister will understand that we often come to this issue with history and positions previously taken: he is a former treasurer of the Conservative Friends of Israel, and the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and the Secretary of State are regarded as very strong supporters of Israel. My right hon. Friend will know how important it is, when people get into these positions and hold responsibilities for whole-of-Government policy, that they understand all the perspectives around this awful conflict, which is at the heart of so many of the problems in the middle east. He is probably the best equipped of her Ministers to take her gently in hand, and I hope that he does.

Alistair Burt: I appreciate my hon. Friend’s welcome for my right hon. Friend’s apology. He is right; many Members have history in relation to this terrible and longstanding conflict. Those in ministerial positions have to be particularly careful that whatever their background they apply themselves honestly and objectively to the issues. We all try to do so. We cannot pretend we did not have affiliations, but we make sure, when we are acting in the UK’s interests and on UK foreign policy, that that—and absolutely nothing else—is our guiding light. I have seen nothing to suggest that the Secretary of State takes a different view.

Mike Gapes: The Minister said that the Foreign Office was made aware of the Secretary of State’s visit to Israel during her visit. Can he give us more information about when the Foreign Office was made aware? Was it before or after the meetings with Israeli Ministers and politicians? At what level was the Foreign and Commonwealth Office made aware? Did someone in the embassy find out, or did the Secretary of State tell London she was in Israel?

Alistair Burt: My understanding is that FCO officials became aware of my right hon. Friend’s private visit on 24 August—during her visit. I do not have the dates of all the meetings, but I suspect it was after the meetings took place, and I believe that it was she who told the official abroad that she was there and having these visits. That is my understanding of the case.

Tom Brake: Has guidance now been reissued to Ministers and Secretaries of State that they should not freelance on foreign  policy—or on policy in relation to any other Department—when on their holidays, with or without Tory donors present?

Alistair Burt: The Prime Minister said yesterday that the ministerial code would be tightened in relation to this matter, and I am quite sure that it will be. I do not think it has been reissued this morning, but—again—the common sense of this is very clear. That is why my right hon. Friend has recognised that she should have done this differently, as I am sure we all would were we in a similar position.

Kevan Jones: The Minister has been clear that neither his Department nor the Home Office knew about these meetings. He said that they were not set up in the usual way. Can he explain how they were set up? My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes) asked about when the FCO was made aware of the meetings. Is it not important that that question be clarified? If it knew beforehand, did the embassy make any attempt to attend the meetings and make sure the Secretary of State knew her responsibilities?

Alistair Burt: As far as I am aware, no officials sought to attend the meetings. As I said, I think the Foreign Office was made aware of the visits after they had taken place.

Kevan Jones: That’s not what you said.

Alistair Burt: That would seem to be the appropriate thing. The root of this is that my right hon. Friend knows that she should have told the embassy and the Foreign Office in advance.

Kevan Jones: That’s not what you said.

Alistair Burt: I am sorry. I thought I said clearly what I understood the sequence of events to have been. The meetings were set up by Lord Polak through his contacts and interests with Israel, which are widely known.

Maria Eagle: This appears to have been a gross breach of the code of ministerial conduct—certainly every code I have ever seen—and, as a Minister of nine years’ standing in previous Governments, I would have thought that this was a resigning matter. The Minister, for whom I have a lot of respect, has said that no officials attended the meetings. Has the Secretary of State provided a full minute to the Department, the Foreign Office and the Prime Minister of the content of the meetings, which she appears to have attended alone, without any officials, so as to fill this appalling gap that she has created?

Alistair Burt: My right hon. Friend supplied in her statement yesterday a list of the meetings and the subjects covered—nobody would expect a verbatim account of those meetings—and has spoken to the FCO and the Prime Minister about them. I again draw the House’s attention to these meetings, however, with parties ranging from the Foreign Ministry, the Prime Minister of the State of Israel and the Minister for Public Security, Information and Strategic Affairs to several charities. There is nothing in this programme that anyone interested in Israel and the middle east would quibble with. The difficulty was that they were not spoken about in advance, as my right hon. Friend recognises, but none of these  meetings themselves would be considered untoward. That is why the Prime Minister and the Foreign Office are satisfied they were in the UK’s interests and that nothing has happened that is detrimental to the UK’s interests.

Wes Streeting: I feel for the Minister—he has been sent here to answer these questions—but it is not unreasonable to have expected him to arrive able to furnish the House with full details about what was disclosed, to whom, when and under what circumstances. [Interruption.]. He says he has. In response to the questions from my hon. Friends the Members for Ilford South (Mike Gapes) and for North Durham (Mr Jones), he was unable to provide accurate and factual responses about who was met—[Interruption.] Will he stop waving bits of paper, just for one moment, and getting hot under the collar? At what point was the Foreign Office informed? What exactly was it informed about—was it the full scope and content of the meetings? At what stage was it informed? Under what circumstances was it informed? Those are the key questions. Finally, there has been some controversy about this issue with the IDF. Did the Secretary of State discuss funding for the IDF in her meetings in Israel? If so, it was not disclosed in the ministerial statement.

Alistair Burt: I was holding the piece of paper because on it is the statement that my right hon. Friend issued yesterday. It lists the meetings that she attended and the subjects for discussion. It is not a verbatim account, but it is pretty detailed in respect of the matters that she discussed.

Kevan Jones: When did the embassy know about it?

Alistair Burt: I gave the hon. Gentleman the answer to that question. The embassy was aware on 24 August, which I think will have been after some of the meetings. As for who was met and what was said, details have been provided.
I am sure colleagues do not believe that the Secretary of State should not have discussed the Pears Programme for Global Innovation with Dr Aliza Inbal, discussed with IsraAID emergency humanitarian aid and the work that the organisation does, or visited Save a Child’s Heart. If I were on a development-related visit to Israel, I would want to have exactly the same meetings. The root of the matter and the heart of the concern is the fact that my right hon. Friend did not disclose her visit at the outset. She has addressed that, and the details of the meetings have been made clear in her statement.

John Woodcock: Earlier, the Deputy Leader of the House accused Labour Front Benchers of pursuing this matter because they were vehemently anti-Israel. I freely admit that I have profound disagreements with the perspectives of some of my Labour colleagues on this conflict, but let me say to the Minister and to all Members that, as a former proud chair of Labour Friends of Israel, I am appalled by what has happened. The Minister is right to say that the meetings were not heinous in and of themselves, but the lack of accountability is highly suspect.

John Bercow: Order. This is a most interesting and engaging disquisition, but I am looking for the question mark, and I think that the hon. Gentleman is teetering on the brink of it.

John Woodcock: Does the Minister not agree that it is beyond credibility that the International Development Secretary thought that it could be an appropriate use of UK public funds to divert them to the Israeli Defence Forces in the Golan Heights? This is surely an example of her seeking a position within the Conservative party and bringing the country into disrepute.

Alistair Burt: The hon. Gentleman would not expect me to defend any suggestion that the matter is being pursued because of an Israel angle, but it is a perfectly legitimate matter for the hon. Member for Edmonton (Kate Osamor) to have raised because, as we know, the substance of it is already contained in a ministerial apology. My right hon. Friend accepts that she got the sequence wrong, and that she should have done something differently. Therefore, I accept the question in a perfectly straightforward way. However, I think it is a stretch to say that, having learnt on that trip—if she did not already know—of the Israeli army’s work in looking after people from Syria who cannot get medical aid for their acute injuries there and who cross the border into Israel where aid is properly and freely given by the Israeli Defence Forces, she should not have come back and said that that was an extraordinary humanitarian gesture, and asked whether there was anything that we should do. The answer to that question is no, for the reasons that I gave earlier, but not to believe that it is a perfectly genuine question to ask, on a humanitarian basis, strikes me as a bit of a stretch.

Caroline Lucas: It is dismal to see the Minister having to defend the indefensible in this way. He is doing his very best to put a positive gloss on the issue, but does he really believe that, when the Secretary of State offered to make financial assistance available to the Israeli Defence Forces to aid that settlement development in the Golan Heights, she did not know, or did not care, that the UK does not recognise the legality of Israel’s occupation of the Golan Heights? Will he clarify that point, please?

Alistair Burt: Let me make it clear that there is no question of supporting any settlements in the Golan Heights. What the Israeli Defence Forces do is open information, which the hon. Lady can find on the internet. Civilians from Syria come to the Israeli Defence Forces with their injured, for whom they cannot get help on their side of the border, and ask for medical help, which the Israeli Defence Forces give. That is an extraordinary humanitarian act, and it has been going on for some time. I do not think that my right hon. Friend was unreasonable to look at the work that was going on and ask whether there was something that the United Kingdom could do to assist it. Because we regard the Golan Heights as occupied territory, and because we cannot support the Israeli occupation, the answer to her query was no, but I think it entirely reasonable for her to have come back and thought about it—and, of course, the Department provided the appropriate answer.

Naseem Shah: Does the Minister understand the concern that the public will feel when it seems that British foreign policy on Israel and Palestine is being run by a Conservative-linked lobby group rather than by an independent civil service and  an elected Government? Is this not just another example of a Government who are in disarray as lobby groups, not Downing Street, run our country?
May I also ask whether the Secretary of State has been referred to Sir Alex Allan or to Sue Gray, the director general of propriety and ethics, in connection with the ministerial code of conduct?

Alistair Burt: The short answer to the hon. Lady’s second question is no, because the Prime Minister considers the matter to be closed. As for her first question, it is palpably obvious that policy on Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories is not made by any lobby group anywhere, but is made, perfectly properly, by the Government. Since my right hon. Friend returned from Israel, support for the west bank, and for the United Nations Relief and Works Agency and the emergency appeal from Gaza, has come from the Department for International Development. Ministers quite properly make the policy. The Government are informed by lots of people, but they make the policy, not lobbyists.

Alan Brown: This feels like another case of shooting the messenger, but are we supposed to believe that—according to the Minister—the Secretary of State had all those meetings that were so beneficial, so worth while, yet did not fully brief people when she came back? This has never come up in parliamentary questions.
We are supposed to believe that the Secretary of State is so capable and has the ability to carry out her role, yet we are also supposed to believe that it was a good idea to give the Israeli Defence Forces money in the Golan Heights—oh wait, we cannot, because we do not recognise the territories; we regard them as occupied territories. That does not sound like someone in whose ability to do her job we can have confidence.
May I also ask a question about demolitions? Did the Secretary of State express any concern about international aid for the villages of Khan al-Ahmar and Susiya?

Alistair Burt: I cannot answer the last part of the hon. Gentleman’s question, because I do not have a verbatim account of all the meetings, but I can say that the Secretary of State is fully behind the Government’s policy, which has been to oppose the demolitions in both Khan al-Ahmar and Susiya. I went to visit those villages in August, and the policy has not changed.
As for the issue of the Israeli Defence Forces, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State saw, as we all have, the extraordinary work that is being done to provide humanitarian assistance and save people from the death that they would have suffered had they not been treated. That she should feel humanitarian concern and ask whether, wherever that support had come from, the United Kingdom could contribute to it did not strike me as unreasonable, but we cannot do so, for the reasons that I have already given.

Ian Murray: It is becoming a regular occurrence in the Chamber for issues to become less rather than more clear when a Minister is at the Dispatch Box. It seems that the Secretary of State informed the Foreign Office about her visit the day before she left; perhaps that was because she got caught.
On the issue of transparency, will the Minister ask the Secretary of State for a full timeline showing when she met the organisations that she met? It should start with the first correspondence between the Secretary of State and Lord Polak, or between whoever arranged the visits in her office and Lord Polak. It should also show whether she used official or unofficial e-mail addresses.

Alistair Burt: Let me say first that my right hon. Friend did not suddenly contrive a long planned visit to Africa in the last 24 hours.

Ian Murray: I did not say that.

Alistair Burt: The hon. Gentleman implied that my right hon. Friend had suddenly found a reason to go to Africa and disappear, and that is not fair.
If more information is needed, there is no reason why further questions may not be asked by means of written parliamentary questions or the like. Let me point out again, however, that a full statement and an apology were made by my right hon. Friend, who recognised that what she did was not in the right sequence, and gave the details of whom she saw. I am sure that, if colleagues seek more information, they will be responded to in the appropriate way.

Steve McCabe: I also have great respect for the right hon. Gentleman, but even he must concede that the more we hear about this affair, the murkier it sounds. May we have an assurance that DFID will publish a summary of all discussions that took place in the months prior to this holiday within the Department that had any connection to Israel or any organisations in Israel, and may we have a summary of all discussions that have taken place in the Department since the holiday?

Alistair Burt: The hon. Gentleman can ask these questions, but I have to say that DFID and the Foreign Office discuss issues relating to Israel and the occupied territories virtually all the time. It is a constant source of discussion as we look at both the long-standing issues between them and the aid we give to the west bank and Gaza in emergency appeals and for long-standing development programmes. That is all public and open and clear. If the hon. Gentleman would like to ask any further questions, he can do, but the information on these matters and the support that is given to the area is well known, and that policy has not changed in any way since my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State came back.

Paula Sherriff: I feel for the Minister, who is a very decent man. He has been brought here to answer questions about significant failings by the Secretary of State, but frankly she should be here today, and if that meant cancelling or postponing a flight, so be it. May I press him on when the Secretary of State first informed her own Department of these meetings, and whether she received any advance briefings or advice?

Alistair Burt: I thank the hon. Lady for her generous remarks; I appreciate them very much.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State informed the FCO on 24 August. If I recall rightly, the FCO at that time made the matter known both to her own  Department and the rest of the FCO. So it was known at that stage. It would seem clear that discussions were not held in advance—my right hon. Friend has apologised for that and recognises she got it wrong. That is what I have been trying to make clear in this statement as best I can, and that was also the purpose of her statement yesterday.

Mike Gapes: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister has given a number of answers to me and other colleagues whereby there is some lack of clarity and some uncertainty. How can we best ensure that the House gets the full facts about the timing and the role of the two Departments in the periods up to, during and at the end of this ministerial private visit to Israel?

John Bercow: The short answer is that Members can table questions, either written or oral or both. If the hon. Gentleman is dissatisfied he can, when the House returns next week, seek, by one or other means of the various types of question available, to procure the information, in all likelihood from the Secretary of State for International Development herself.

Kevan Jones: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. Will the Minister have an opportunity to offer some clarification? He has said today that Foreign Office staff in Israel found out about these meetings as they were going on, but, from answers to my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) and others, it seems clear that they found out after the meetings had taken place. May we get some clarity about when they did find this out?

John Bercow: The Minister of State may come in in a moment if he wishes, but when that was first put to him, he effectively acknowledged the likelihood that that was so, and I think it recurred as an issue in the course of the questioning—and the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) has now reiterated the same point. So, although there might not be specificity today about precise dates, on the concept involved, the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of State was clear. It is open to Members to return to these matters in the normal way through written and oral interrogation, and the hon. Gentleman will have to be only modestly patient.

Alistair Burt: rose—

John Bercow: But I think we should preserve the last words on this matter to the Minister of State, whose emollient tone we will now hear.

Alistair Burt: I am happy to do as best I can by being as clear as I can. The information I have is that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State told Foreign Office officials on 24 August that she was on the visit. It seems likely that the meetings took place beforehand. The reason for the statement and for her explanation yesterday is that she recognises that she should have told people beforehand. So there is no doubt about that: that is what the explanation is for; that is what the statement is for; and she has apologised for that—she got that wrong. I do not think there is any lack of clarity about the date, the sequence or anything else now.

John Bercow: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman.

Chris Bryant: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Bearing in mind what the Minister has just said and what has been said about giving advance notice, would it not be nice, and rather charming, if the Secretary of State just told you—today, perhaps—that she was going to make a statement next Monday, so all of this could be cleared up in the round?

John Bercow: I always welcome communication from the right hon. Lady, whom I have known for many years. If she becomes aware of these matters and wishes to indicate to me an intention to come to the House, she is welcome to do so and I would welcome it, but that has to be for her to judge. We will leave it there for now.

YEMEN

Stephen Twigg: (Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the impact of the escalation of Saudi Arabia’s blockade on the humanitarian situation in Yemen.

Alistair Burt: First, it has been made clear where the Secretary of State is, and we have apologised for her being on a visit to Africa. Let me answer the question.
Yemen is the world’s largest humanitarian crisis: 21 million people in Yemen are in need of humanitarian assistance, and nearly 10 million are in need of immediate help to support or sustain life. As the third-largest humanitarian donor to Yemen and the second-largest donor to the UN appeal, the UK is already leading the world’s response to the crisis in Yemen. Our funding of £155 million this year will provide enough food for 1.8 million people for at least a month, nutrition support for 1.7 million people and clean water and sanitation for an expected 1.2 million people.
As penholder on Yemen at the United Nations Security Council, the UK was responsible for a presidential statement earlier this year that called on all parties to provide safe, rapid and unhindered access for humanitarian supplies and personnel to all affected governorates in Yemen. We continue to call on all parties to the conflict to respect the statement and take action accordingly.
As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary set out in his statement on Sunday 5 November, the UK condemns the attempted missile strike on Riyadh this Saturday in the strongest terms. The ongoing ballistic missile attacks by Houthi-Saleh forces against Saudi Arabia threaten regional security and prolong the conflict. This latest attack deliberately targeted a civilian area. We therefore recognise the coalition’s concern about illicit flows of weapons to the Houthis, in direct contravention of UN Security Council resolution 2216.
We also recognise that, following Saturday’s attack, Saudi Arabia needs to take urgent measures to stem the flow of weapons into Yemen. At the same time, it is vital that the country remains open to humanitarian and commercial access. The Saudi-led coalition has confirmed that it will take into account the provision of humanitarian supplies. We are encouraging it to ensure that humanitarian supplies and access can continue. Our ambassador is actively making this case directly to the Saudi authorities.
Finally, there remains a desperate need for a political solution to the Yemen conflict, to help to end the suffering of the Yemeni people, to counter destabilising interference and to end attacks on neighbouring countries. It is vital that this situation does not escalate further. The United Kingdom will continue to work towards a political settlement that supports regional stability, and calls on all countries in the region to support that goal. We will also continue to support our partners in the region in protecting themselves against security threats.

Stephen Twigg: I join the Minister in condemning the missile strike on Riyadh by the Houthis, which has been described by Human Rights Watch as
“most likely a war crime”.
We have seen alleged violations of international humanitarian law on all sides of this conflict. Will the Minister update the House on progress towards the independent investigation that was agreed at the recent United Nations Human Rights Council? I welcome what he says about seeking to bring all parties back to the table in Geneva. Can he tell us what progress has been made towards securing a ceasefire, so that a political solution can be achieved?
The scale of the humanitarian crisis in Yemen is truly appalling. The cholera outbreak is considered the worst on record, and as the Minister said, the UN estimates that more than 20 million Yemenis are in need of humanitarian assistance, with 7 million on the brink of famine. The Saudi-led coalition has now intensified its blockade. With 90% of Yemen’s food imported, that risks making the dire humanitarian situation even worse. Does the Minister agree that that blockade could constitute unlawful collective punishment of the people of Yemen?
The Minister mentioned the representations that our ambassador was making. What representations has he and the Foreign Secretary made to Saudi Arabia to have the blockade lifted as soon as possible? I urge the Minister and the Government to do everything in their power to get that inhumane blockade lifted.

Alistair Burt: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who is the Chair of the International Development Committee, for raising this issue. Let me try to take matters in order. On the reaction to the incident, we should in no way mistake the intent of the direction of that missile or where it came from. An Iranian-supplied missile to the Houthis was deliberately fired towards Riyadh airport, with all the implications that that involves. That the Saudis would take immediate steps to safeguard their country and ensure that the flow of missiles into Yemen was further checked is not unreasonable.
At the same time, as the hon. Gentleman makes clear, it is vital that humanitarian and commercial access should continue. We have consistently urged the coalition to take all reasonable steps to allow and facilitate rapid and safe access for humanitarian assistance and essential commercial imports of food and fuel. We are actively engaged with the coalition and those responsible for humanitarian support in Yemen to try to find a way that will enable the blockade not to affect the humanitarian access, while still safeguarding the important rights of those in Saudi Arabia who might be under attack. I spoke to the Saudi Minister on Saturday, shortly before the attack took place. I intend to speak to him again shortly, either today or tomorrow. Since Saturday night, the ambassador has been actively engaged in Riyadh in trying to deal with these issues.
In relation to cholera and malnutrition, we try to be at the forefront of international efforts on both those topics to provide support to UN agencies that are actively involved, and we will continue to do that.
Importantly, on the political negotiations, I am well aware of what is happening there. We had a meeting in New York recently, and there is likely to be another ministerial meeting shortly at which we will be trying to find a pathway through to the descaling of the conflict. This is not just about the coalition forces. It is about the Houthis and those who support them, and about whether they have any willingness to take regard of the appalling  condition of the people of Yemen, which has been caused by their actions in starting the conflict and usurping a legitimate elected Government.

Pauline Latham: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the UK is playing a leading role in the response to the appalling humanitarian crisis in Yemen, as the third largest humanitarian donor to Yemen in the world and the second largest donor to the UN appeal?

Alistair Burt: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for helping to make that case. The United Kingdom has played as big a part as it possibly can, whether through its bilateral support or through UN agencies. In September, we announced a £16 million uplift in funding to Yemen, which took our total funding for this year to £155 million, as I detailed earlier. This will support millions of people with food, clean water and sanitation, and other life-saving interventions. We recently reallocated £8 million specifically towards the cholera response, but further work is necessary and the United Kingdom is contributing what it can.

Kate Osamor: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg) for asking this urgent question. The escalation of the conflict in Yemen in recent weeks, resulting in the Saudi-led coalition closing all land, air and sea entry points, represents a particularly alarming development, even in a protracted conflict that is now more than two years old.
The country is already facing the worst cholera outbreak in recorded history, with more than 800,000 cases, and more than 20 million people are in need of urgent humanitarian assistance. The blockading of ports will only add to the already catastrophic humanitarian situation, and the UK must do whatever it can to ensure that we mitigate the impact of this new development.
With the UK’s own actions in mind, will the Minister tell us how the Department for International Development is responding to this new development, and what assessments have been made of the blockade’s impact on DFID’s humanitarian operation across Yemen? Given that other countries, such as the US, refused to sell arms to countries that impose humanitarian blockades, will Her Majesty’s Government now finally re-evaluate their decision to continue to sell arms to the Saudi-led coalition and suspend further arms sales immediately?

Alistair Burt: I thank the hon. Lady for her remarks. The first and most important thing is to try to ease any impact of the blockade in relation to humanitarian access. I returned to the fact that missiles flow into Yemen through ports and through other areas. The firing of those missiles puts innocent civilians at risk, both in and outside Yemen, and it is not unreasonable to seek to ensure that that does not happen. We stand by those who want to take such measures to prevent that action from happening, while at the same time ensuring that there is appropriate access for humanitarian and commercial supplies. The commercial supplies feed people, as well as the humanitarian aid, and they are therefore essential.
Since the events at the weekend, and as part of the Government’s approach, DFID has made representations because we want to ensure that the UN agencies that we  fund have that access. But of course, the situation is particularly difficult in the immediate aftermath of an event that could have had catastrophic consequences, including for UK citizens, has that missile landed on Riyadh airport. The hon. Lady is right, however, to concentrate on the blockade. We will do all we can to press the point that we have to find a way through for increased humanitarian and commercial access.
On the arms control issue, the House knows that this matter is extensively trawled over by the Department and that we have a rigorous arms control regime in place. Every request for support is dealt with on a case-by-case basis. The Government were recently successful in the legal action in relation to that, but that does not stop us being very careful about any supplies. The important thing is to end the conflict, and that is what the United Kingdom is devoted to. However, too little attention is given to the fact that there are two sides to this conflict and that it could come to an end tomorrow if the Houthis and those who support them would agree to the negotiations that are necessary to end it, so that Yemen can at last emerge from a period of some years in which the people have not been well regarded by those who purport to govern them, to give them the chance they deserve.

Julian Lewis: Have the Government made an assessment of the current political convulsions in Saudi Arabia? If so, might there be implications for the situation in Yemen?

Alistair Burt: Well, if the House has 20 minutes—[Laughter.] In an ever-fascinating region, to add to what we know about what is happening in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia at the moment would take a little while. Recent events in Saudi Arabia include Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman consolidating his already strong position by taking action at the weekend on corruption as part of his efforts to drive Saudi Arabia forward. He believes that the “Vision 2030” plan—the economic and social advancement of Saudi Arabia—cannot be achieved without dealing with corruption, which is so widespread across the region. The decision that certain individuals had to be arrested and questioned about their activities has had a clear impact.
The relevance to Yemen is limited, but there is no doubt about the impact of the missile strike on Saudi Arabia, in addition to the missile strikes that already take place. The House does not always concentrate on the number of civilians in Saudi Arabia who have lost their lives as a result of missiles from Yemen. My right hon. Friend is right that the combination of the two factors means that we have to work even harder to try to find a negotiated solution, which is what all parties now seriously want.

Stewart McDonald: The scale of the devastation and cruelty outlined by the Chair of the International Development Committee and by the Minister should haunt us all, but the Minister sees his Government’s record through somewhat rose-tinted glasses. The Saudi Government have benefited from the sale of £3.8 billion-worth of weapons from this country, yet the Government have given only £200 million in aid to Yemen. Will the Minister explain that large disparity?  As other Members have said, should we not join countries such as Germany and the Netherlands by suspending arms sales to Saudi Arabia? Does the Minister not see that there is an inconsistency in the Government ending a prisons contract with Saudi Arabia over human rights concerns, but not suspending arms sales over the humanitarian crisis in Yemen? Finally, will he outline what he hopes to achieve at the joint Foreign Ministers meeting with Saudi Arabia, the United States, Oman and the UAE on 14 November? What will Her Majesty’s Government be calling for, and what is he hopeful of achieving?

Alistair Burt: Let me start with the last part of the hon. Gentleman’s questions. We have convened that meeting, which we hope will be in London, and it follows a meeting that I hosted in New York at the end of the General Assembly of the United Nations that involved what is known as the “quad”—the United Kingdom, the Unites States, the UAE and Saudi Arabia—meeting the UN special envoy for Yemen to discuss progress on the negotiations and talks. The engagement of Oman is about trying to provide the link that will get the Houthis and those who support them to engage in the talks and use the good offices of Oman to try to achieve that in Muscat. It is part of an effort made over many months to support the work of the UN special envoy, to try to make political progress, which the United Kingdom is doing all it can to facilitate. What do I hope comes out of it? I hope that we get a detailed plan for the de-escalation of the conflict, but that will work only if all parties agree to it. It is a matter of utmost concern to the United Kingdom that we do that and that is what we are engaged in.
As for the hon. Gentleman’s other questions, I spoke earlier about the arms control situation. It is not the United Kingdom’s policy to change matters in relation to Saudi Arabia, but to continue to use rigorous arms controls mechanisms and our legal obligations, not least to ensure that international humanitarian law is applied in relation to the use of any United Kingdom weapons by the Saudis. Any allegations that that is not happening are open to legal challenge.
As I have indicated, we are the third largest donor of humanitarian aid to Yemen. We have supplied £150 million this year to provide nutrition for 1.7 million people and clean water and sanitation for 1.2 million people. However, I fully appreciate that unless the conflict comes to an end the handing over of aid is a plaster over the situation. The whole House should be united in wanting to see the negotiations succeed, and that is what the United Kingdom is spending all its efforts on.

Crispin Blunt: Does my right hon. Friend agree that no-one should envy the Saudi-led coalition and the complexity of the task it has set itself, under a unanimous mandate from the UN Security Council, to deliver some security and stability in Yemen? Is he able to give us some sense of the number of Saudi civilians who have been killed by missiles coming from Houthi-held areas, as illustrated today by the missile that was fired at Riyadh?

Alistair Burt: The number of deaths among the Saudis is measured in hundreds and relates to a variety of missile attacks over a significant period. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks about the complexity  and difficulty of the situation that the coalition is trying to deal with: an insurrection against an elected Government that is complicated by all the history of Yemen. That is why it is taking such effort to try to pull it all together. There is also the unwelcome involvement of those who are supplying weapons to the Houthis, instead of contributing to the peace process. There is always a chance for any of the parties involved to play a part now, recognising the seriousness of the humanitarian situation.

John Woodcock: The profile of Daesh terrorism in the region is increasing. What are the United Kingdom and the international community doing to prevent the collapse of Daesh in Syria from further prolonging the horrific humanitarian situation outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg)?

Alistair Burt: The hon. Gentleman is mostly right in his questions, and he is back on form with that one. As Daesh collapses elsewhere, he is absolutely right that it will look for other areas of instability to exploit. Al-Qaeda is already exploiting the peninsula, which is why the prolonging of this dispute, particularly the engagement of those outside who are supplying weapons to the Houthis, makes life much more difficult. The United Kingdom is trying to end the conflict by negotiation, but in the meantime we support the coalition’s efforts to prevent any further conflict and damage to civilians.

Thomas Tugendhat: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the actions of the Iranian Government both in Yemen and in the wider region are having a direct impact on the lives of millions of people in the Arabian peninsula? Does he agree that the position of Her Majesty’s Government must be to face the enemies not only of our own country, but of our allies? In this region, the situation points to Iran.

Alistair Burt: How my hon. Friend perceives the situation is correct. In many ways, we are trying to understand a future Iran that is looking for engagement with the wider world on the one hand, but is engaged in disruptive activity on the other, whether in Syria, Yemen, Iraq or Bahrain. There is always the opportunity for those who have been responsible for such disruption to change, and our engagement with Iran is partly about providing the opportunity for it to be part of an answer, rather than part of a problem.

Ann Clwyd: Is it not a bit misleading for Ministers to suggest that there is rigorous control of arms exports in this House when the Committees on Arms Export Controls have not met for several months for several reasons? They will be meeting soon, but almost a year has gone by without a meeting, and the outcome on exports to Saudi Arabia may have been different.

Alistair Burt: I understand the right hon. Lady’s question. Having been at the receiving end of Sir John Stanley on many occasions, I know how rigorous the House can be. However, re-establishing the Committees is more of a matter for Parliament than the Government. The Government would be entirely open to that, but the rigorous control of the law is certainly clear and very much in the Government’s mind.

Mims Davies: The Minister highlights easing the blockade and supporting innocent civilians as a priority. Will he update the House on the viability of peace talks and on the role the UK is playing in cajoling everyone to come to the table? How likely are such talks, and what could be the outcome if we get around the table?

Alistair Burt: I commend the actions of our ambassador to Yemen, Simon Shercliff, and our permanent representative to the UN, Matthew Rycroft, both locally and internationally in support of the work I mentioned earlier to get the various parties together and to find a negotiated outcome. They, in particular, are doing all they can, and they have the full support of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in London.

Jo Swinson: How does the Minister reconcile the fact that the urgent humanitarian disaster in Yemen, which we are rightly sending aid to try to address, has been made worse by the weapons the UK has sold to Saudi Arabia?

Alistair Burt: If no further weapons were supplied by the United Kingdom, the conflict would still go on. [Interruption.] That simply happens to be true. There has been conflict in the area for some considerable time, and there are many issues to be decided. I wish it were as simple as the United Kingdom making a single decision and all the conflict in the area comes to an end, but I cannot see it.

Jo Swinson: That’s not what I said.

Alistair Burt: It is exactly what the hon. Lady said. I make it very clear that I do not believe it would assist the situation; I think it would make it more difficult for the United Kingdom to play the part it is playing in the negotiations—that is the most important thing.

Mike Wood: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the UN appeal for Yemen raised only just over half its target? Does he agree it is now time for other countries to follow the UK’s lead by making pledges or by honouring the pledges already made?

Alistair Burt: My hon. Friend makes a good point. Sadly, there is appeal fatigue at present. Whether it is new issues such as the Rohingya or the pressures in northern Iraq with the fall of Mosul and Raqqa, as well as Yemen, it is true that efforts to raise money through UN appeals have been very difficult, which is why it is important that the United Kingdom keeps up its extraordinary record. I am proud that the United Kingdom has been such a donor, both bilaterally and through these appeals.

Jim Shannon: There seems to be a softening of attitudes towards human rights in Saudi Arabia and, I hope, towards a more secular society. Will the Minister indicate whether he has had discussions with Saudi Arabia’s new leaders about resuming peace talks, using the scheduled meeting of the Foreign Ministers of the United Kingdom, Saudi Arabia, the United States, Oman and the United Arab Emirates on 14 November?

Alistair Burt: My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has already engaged in direct conversations with His Royal Highness Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman. I engaged with the Foreign Minister of Saudi Arabia, the Foreign Minister of the UAE and others at the weekend. There is a constant conversation. We all desperately want to see an end to this conflict and crisis. More than just the coalition is involved, which is why efforts have to be made with the Houthis and those who support them. The involvement of Iran is so important, as Iran could also make a contribution to peace. All efforts are being made, and my right hon. Friend is working extremely hard on the situation.

COUNTER-DAESH UPDATE

Boris Johnson: With your permission, Mr Speaker, I will make a statement updating the House on the campaign against Daesh in Iraq and Syria, but I should like to begin by informing the House that I called the Iranian Foreign Minister, Mr Zarif, this morning to discuss the case of Mrs Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe. I expressed my anxiety about her suffering and the ordeal of her family, and I repeated my hope for a swift solution. I also voiced my concern at the suggestion emanating from one branch of the Iranian judiciary that my remarks to the Foreign Affairs Committee last week had some bearing on Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe’s case.
The UK Government have no doubt that Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe was on holiday in Iran when she was arrested last year, and that was the sole purpose of her visit. My point was that I disagreed with the Iranian view that training journalists is a crime, not that I wanted to lend any credence to Iranian allegations that Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe had been engaged in such activity. I accept that my remarks could have been clearer in that respect, and I am glad to provide this clarification.
I am sure that the House will join me in paying tribute to the tireless campaigning of Mr Ratcliffe on behalf of his wife. We will not relent in our efforts to help all our consular cases in Iran. Mr Zarif told me that any recent developments in the case had no link to my testimony last week and that he would continue to seek a solution on humanitarian grounds. I will visit Iran in the coming weeks, when I will discuss all our consular cases.
I turn now to the campaign against Daesh. In the summer of 2014, Daesh swept down the Tigris and Euphrates valleys, occupying thousands of square miles of Iraqi territory, pillaging cities, massacring and enslaving minorities, and seeking to impose by pitiless violence a demented vision of an Islamist utopia. Daesh had gathered strength in eastern Syria, using the opportunity created by that country’s civil war to seize oilfields and to carve out a base from which to launch its assault on Iraq.
Today, Daesh has been rolled back on every battlefront. Thanks to the courage and resolve of Iraq’s security forces, our partners in Syria, and the steadfast action of the 73 members of the global coalition, including this country, Daesh has lost 90% of the territory it once held in Iraq and Syria—including Raqqa, its erstwhile capital—and 6 million people have been freed from its rule.
When my right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Sir Michael Fallon), the former Defence Secretary, last updated the House in July, the biggest city in northern Iraq, Mosul, had just been liberated. Since then, Iraqi forces have broken Daesh’s grip on the towns of Tal Afar and Hawija, and cleared the terrorists from all but a relatively small area near the Syrian border, demonstrating how the false and failed caliphate is crumbling before our eyes.
The House will join me in paying tribute to the men and women of the British armed forces who have been vital to every step of the advance. More than 600 British soldiers are in Iraq, where they have helped to train 50,000 members of the Iraqi security forces. The RAF  has delivered 1,352 air strikes against Daesh in Iraq and 263 in Syria, which is more than any other air force apart from that of the United States.
I turn now to Syria. On 20 October, the global coalition confirmed the fall of Raqqa after three years of brutal occupation. The struggle was long and hard, and I acknowledge the price that has been paid by the coalition’s partner forces on the ground and, most especially, by the civilian population of Raqqa. Throughout the military operation, the Department for International Development has been working with partners in Raqqa province to supply food, water, healthcare and shelter wherever possible. On 22 October, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development announced another £10 million of aid to clear the landmines sown by Daesh, to restock hospitals and mobile surgical units with essential medicines, and to provide clean water for 15,000 people.
The permanent defeat of Daesh in Syria, by which I mean removing the conditions that allowed it to seize large areas in the first place, will require a political settlement, which must include a transition away from the Assad regime that did so much to create the conditions for the rise of Daesh. How such a settlement is reached is, of course, a matter for the Syrians themselves, and we will continue to support the work of the United Nations special envoy, Staffan de Mistura, and the Geneva process.
I am encouraged by how America and Russia have stayed in close contact on the future of Syria. We must continue to emphasise to the Kremlin that, instead of blindly supporting a murderous regime—even after UN investigators have found the regime’s forces guilty of using sarin nerve gas, most recently at Khan Sheikhoun in April—Russia should join the international community and support a negotiated settlement in Syria under the auspices of the UN.
Turning to Iraq, more than 2 million people have returned to their homes in areas liberated from Daesh, including 265,000 who have gone back to Mosul. Britain is providing over £200 million of practical life-saving assistance for Iraqi civilians. We are helping to clear the explosives that were laid by Daesh, to restore water supplies that the terrorists sabotaged, and to give clean water to 200,000 people and healthcare to 115,000. Now that Daesh is close to defeat in Iraq, the country’s leaders must resolve the political tensions that, in part, paved the way for its advance in 2014. The Kurdistan region held a unilateral referendum on independence on 25 September, a decision we did not support. Since then, Masoud Barzani has stepped down as President of the Kurdistan Regional Government and Iraqi forces have reasserted federal control over disputed territory, including the city of Kirkuk. We are working alongside our allies to reduce tensions in northern Iraq. Rather than reopening old conflicts, the priority must be to restore the stability, prosperity and national unity that is the right of every Iraqi.
A general election will take place in Iraq next May, creating an opportunity for parties to set out their respective visions of a country that overcomes sectarianism and serves every citizen, including Kurds. But national reconciliation will require justice, and justice demands that Daesh is held accountable for its atrocities in Iraq and elsewhere. That was why I acted over a year ago, in concert with the Government of Iraq, to launch the  global campaign to bring Daesh to justice. In September, the Security Council unanimously adopted UN resolution 2379, a British-drafted text, co-sponsored by 46 countries, that will establish a UN investigation to help to gather and preserve the evidence of Daesh crimes in Iraq.
Every square mile of territory that Daesh has lost is one square mile less for it to exploit, tax and plunder. The impending destruction of the so-called caliphate will reduce its ability to fund terrorism abroad and attract new recruits. Yet Daesh will still try to inspire attacks by spreading its hateful ideology in cyber-space even after it has lost every inch of its physical domain. That is why Britain leads the global coalition’s efforts to counter Daesh propaganda, through a communications cell based here in London, and Daesh’s total propaganda output has fallen by half since 2015. But social media companies can and must do more, particularly to speed up the detection and removal of dangerous material, and to prevent it from being uploaded in the first place, hence my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister co-hosted an event at the UN General Assembly in September on how to stop terrorists from using the internet.
The Government have always made it clear that any British nationals who join Daesh have chosen to make themselves legitimate targets for the coalition. We expect that most foreign fighters will die in the terrorist domain where they opted to serve, but some may surrender or try to come home, including to the UK. As the Government have previously said, anyone who returns to this country after taking part in the conflict in Syria or Iraq must expect to be investigated for reasons of national security.
While foreign fighters face the consequences of their decisions, the valour and sacrifice of the armed forces of many nations, including our own, has prevented a terrorist entity from taking root in the heart of the middle east. I commend this statement to the House.

Emily Thornberry: I thank the Foreign Secretary for advance sight of his statement. I will come to his remarks regarding Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe in a moment, but let me first address the formal purpose of this statement: the Government’s quarterly update on the fight against Daesh. We are all agreed in this House that Daesh is nothing but an evil death cult and that it must be wiped off the face of the earth. We therefore warmly welcome the recent, hard-fought successes against it in both Syria and Iraq, with its vision of a caliphate stretching across both countries now lying in absolute ruins. But while that specific danger evaporates before our eyes, we know all too well that the wider threat that Daesh poses remains, as it ceases to operate as a conventional military force, seeking to occupy territory and towns, and retreats to the role of a well-armed, well-trained and fanatical network of terrorist cells that seeks to indoctrinate others, and to inflict indiscriminate, mass casualties in Iraq, Syria and far, far beyond. We therefore must not let our guard down. The fight against Daesh has not been won; it is simply switching to a new phase.
I therefore have a number of questions that I hope the Foreign Secretary will address. First, will he correct his junior colleague, the Minister for Africa, who said recently that the only way to deal with British citizens who have gone to fight for Daesh is
“in almost every case, to kill them”?
That, of course, sends a very unfortunate signal to groups in Syria and beyond who are currently holding in detention British citizens captured on the battlefield. Will the Foreign Secretary make it clear today that it remains the Government’s policy that those individuals should be returned to this country to face trial for their crimes, rather than simply being executed by their captors? He might also advise the Minister for Africa that in positions of responsibility in the Foreign Office, you have to engage your brain and think about the consequences of your words before opening your mouth.
Secondly, the Foreign Secretary will have noted last week the first US drone strikes targeting Daesh, rather than al-Shabaab, inside Somalia. Will he guarantee the House that if the UK is asked to participate in the opening of that new front against Daesh, authorising such action will be the subject of a proper parliamentary debate and vote?
Thirdly, as Daesh increasingly ceases to be a military player in the Syrian civil war, will the Foreign Secretary tell us the Government’s current strategy in Syria? What are we now seeking to achieve, in both a military and diplomatic sense, from our engagement there? Specifically, will he tell us whether the Government intend to continue channelling funds to Syrian opposition groups? Will he give us a cast-iron guarantee that none of the £200 million that has already been channelled to those groups over the past three years has ended up in the hands of the al-Nusra Front or other jihadist groups?
Finally, as attention turns to Daesh’s last remaining stronghold, in Bukamal, the Foreign Secretary will be aware of the risks as Russian and Iranian-backed forces approach the town from one side, and the Syrian democratic forces approach it from the other. Will he tell the House what steps Britain is taking to ensure the battle to liberate Bukamal from Daesh, both from the air and on the ground, does not inadvertently lead to clashes between the two liberating armies?
Turning now to Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe, we appreciate the Foreign Secretary’s clarification, we welcome the phone call he made this morning to his Iranian counterpart and we all hope that no lasting damage is done to Nazanin as a result of his blunder. However, I hope that he will now take the opportunity to apologise to this woman’s family, to her friends, to her employers, to my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq), and to all those others in this House and beyond who have been working so hard to obtain this young mother’s release, for the distress and anguish that his foolish words have caused to them and to this woman in recent days? We are all bound to ask: how many more times does this need to happen? How many more times does the Foreign Secretary have to insult our international partners and damage our diplomatic relations, and now imperil the interests of British nationals abroad? What will it take before the Prime Minister says, “Enough is enough”? If the truth is that she cannot, because she does not have the strength or authority to sack him, how about the Foreign Secretary himself shows a bit of personal responsibility and admits that a job like this, where your words hold gravity and your actions have consequences, is simply not the job for him?

Boris Johnson: I shall take the right hon. Lady’s points in turn. Our view about UK nationals fighting for Daesh in Iraq or Syria is, of course, that they must think of themselves as legitimate targets while they are doing that. If they seek to come back here, they will of course be subject to investigation and the full force of the law. On her second question, we have had no request for air strikes of the type she mentions or a military operation in Somalia of the kind that she describes.
On the right hon. Lady’s third point, in respect of the policy on Syria, we are working to bring together the Astana and Geneva processes. We believe that the great political leverage that we in the UK and more broadly in the west have over the Russians and, indeed, over all those involved in the future of Syria, is that it is the west—the UK, the EU and the US—that has the budgets for rebuilding Syria. It is only if the Assad regime, the Russians and the Iranians accept the need for a political process that we can begin the process of rebuilding. As for Bukamal, communications are of course going on to de-conflict and to make sure that the factions concerned do not come into conflict.
In the right hon. Lady’s final point, she came back to the case of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe. Let me repeat that what everybody in this House wants to see is Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe’s release. That is exactly what the Foreign Office is working for. That is what we have been working for solidly over the past 18 months. It is simply untrue for the right hon. Lady to say, as she has said today, that there is any connection whatever between my remarks last week and the legal proceedings under way against Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe in Tehran today. I say to her that she has a choice—she always has a choice in these matters. She can choose to heap blame on to the British Foreign Office, which is trying to secure the release of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe, but in so doing she deflects blame and accountability from those who are truly responsible for holding that mother in jail, and that is the Iranian regime. [Interruption.]

Eleanor Laing: Order. The Foreign Secretary is dealing with a very important matter of some delicacy. Nobody anywhere in this House ought to be shouting while he is doing so. [Interruption.] And they certainly should not be shouting while I am speaking from the Chair. The Foreign Secretary might wish to finish his point.

Boris Johnson: I had completed my point, but I shall make it again. It is a great shame that in seeking to score political points, the right hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) is deflecting blame, accountability and responsibility from where it truly lies, which is with the Iranian regime. It is towards releasing Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe, not blaming the UK Foreign Office, that we should direct our efforts.

Julian Lewis: May I appeal to the Foreign Secretary, even at this late stage, to adopt a more realistic policy on the outcome in Syria? It was always the case that if Daesh was going to lose, the Iraqi Government were going to win in their territory and the Syrian Government were going to win in their territory. We have not seen any sign of a third force of 70,000 moderate fighters. Will he accept the  fact that, unpleasant though it is, it is better to recognise that the regime is going to persevere in Syria? That is a price that we have to pay for the elimination of Daesh.

Boris Johnson: My right hon. Friend speaks on this matter with great wisdom. We must accept that the Assad regime does now possess itself of most of what we might call operational Syria. That is a reality, but it has not won. It does not possess all of Syria. If it wants the country to be rebuilt, it knows that that can be done only with the support of us in the UK and those in the European Union and the United States. That is the leverage that we hold, and that is how we hope to get the Assad regime and the Russians to engage in a proper political process.

Stephen Gethins: I thank the Foreign Secretary for early sight of his statement. First, on Syria, Scottish National party Members obviously welcome any reversals of Daesh, and we welcome the short-term humanitarian help that is being provided to the people of Syria. The Foreign Secretary will be aware that there must be long-term consolidation, so what long-term funds have been set aside for restructuring in Syria after the conflict? He mentioned accountability; will he support the referral of Daesh fighters’ cases to the International Criminal Court?
On Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe’s case, the Foreign Secretary told the Foreign Affairs Committee that she was “simply teaching people journalism”. He must be aware of the impact of his words. Will he be crystal clear about what he said? Has he met Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe’s family, who are bearing a heavy human cost at the moment? What guidance is he taking from her and her family about her case?

Boris Johnson: I can confirm that the UK is the second biggest donor to the humanitarian relief effort in Syria at the moment, and we will of course be a major contributor to the reconstruction of the country when the Geneva talks get back under way. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we already contribute around £2.46 billion.
On bringing Daesh to justice, I will not hide it from the House: there is a question still about exactly which forum we are going to find to bring these people to justice. But be in no doubt about our determination to do that. We are assembling the evidence therefore.
On the hon. Gentleman’s point about Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe, I repeat that these are allegations made against her by the Iranians, to which we think there is absolutely no substance whatever, as I said in my statement. Before I go to Iran in the next few weeks, I will of course seek a meeting with Mr Ratcliffe, who has been in regular contact with our Ministers and with the Foreign Office.

Crispin Blunt: In his oral statement, I thought I heard the Foreign Secretary refer to the coalition’s Kurdish partner forces, with regard to the fight in Raqqa, but the word “Kurdish” does not appear in the written version of the statement that has just been handed out. He also talked about the consequences for Kurds in Iraq of the Kurdistan Regional Government’s referendum. As matters now unfold, with the effective end of Islamic State control of territory in both Syria and Iraq, will he bear in mind the fact that the Kurds have been let down by history over the course of the  past century? They think they have friends in the United Kingdom and the United States. Will he try to ensure that, when it comes to the protection of Kurdish cultural interests and freedoms in all the countries of the region, it is not just the mountains that are their friends?

Boris Johnson: I thank my hon. Friend for the eloquent way he expressed himself on that point. This country and this House are indeed great friends of Kurdistan. They well remember the role played by the Conservative Government in 1991 in that mountainous region with the setting up of safe havens for the Kurds, which were the origin of the Kurdish Regional Government of today. I see doughty campaigners on the Opposition Benches who have also played a major role.
The Kurds can be in no doubt about our lasting friendship, but we did say to them that the referendum was not the right way forward. The best course now for our Kurdish friends is surely to take advantage of Mr Abadi, who is their best possible hope, and to enter into a solid and substantial negotiation with him.

Yvette Cooper: The Foreign Secretary had a week to correct the record and to apologise over Ms Zaghari-Ratcliffe, and he has not done so. This is not the first time that the Foreign Secretary has said things that are inaccurate or damaging, and he cannot simply shrug them off as a lack of clarity or a careless choice of words.
In this case, there are fears that this could mean the extended incarceration of a British-Iranian woman. The right hon. Gentleman knows that the lives and safety of British citizens across the globe depend on having a Foreign Secretary who does not bluster and who is not too careless or too lazy to consider his words. Will he now apologise? Does he accept that he cannot be trusted to do this job and that he should resign?

Boris Johnson: I really think that I have already made my position clear. Indeed, the Iranians have also made their position clear. There was absolutely no connection with anything that was said in the Foreign Affairs Committee last week. By the way, I see assorted members of the Committee here today, and they passed no comment on it. Those remarks had no impact on the judicial process in Tehran.
Rather than posturing and engaging in party political point-scoring, we need to recognise the extreme sensitivity of these negotiations and get on with securing the release of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe. That is why I am going to Tehran in the course of the next few weeks. I agree that it will not be easy at all because it is a very difficult negotiation, but that is the effort to which the Foreign Office is devoted and dedicated, and it deserves the right hon. Lady’s full support.

Nusrat Ghani: Does the Foreign Secretary share my concerns that while we recognise the destruction of Daesh at its base, it will regroup in other areas? In particular, it could merge with the Taliban in Afghanistan. Is there anything that can be done about that?

Boris Johnson: My hon. Friend is right that Daesh and the phenomenon of Islamist terrorism is widespread and ubiquitous, but we can defeat it. Look at what we  have done just in Iraq and Syria—removing Daesh from 90% of the territory it held. As I said, 2 million people are back in their homes. Daesh can be defeated in the ungoverned spaces where its fighters have made their homes and set up their headquarters, and it will ultimately be defeated in Afghanistan as well. I am not saying that this is for tomorrow or, indeed, for the day after, but we, and moderate Muslims everywhere, will win this struggle.

Jo Swinson: The casual disregard for the truth shown by the Foreign Secretary in his campaign bus last year was bad enough, but his carelessness in the case of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe last week is unforgiveable. Does he realise that his words have a serious impact in this role? This is not a game. If he will not take his job seriously enough even to read his brief, he should step down and make way for one of his colleagues who will.

Boris Johnson: With great respect, I refer the hon. Lady to the answer I gave a moment ago.

Anna Soubry: I commend the Foreign Secretary on his statement. Will he now give us an undertaking that he will concentrate in future on the very important matters within his brief as Foreign Secretary? To that end, will he give an undertaking to support the Prime Minister in her efforts—in relation to the Florence speech, for example—and ensure that his own ambitions are put secondary to the wellbeing of all my constituents and everybody else in this country? That is his job.

Boris Johnson: I assure my right hon. Friend that she and I are united—as I am sure the whole House is—in support of every jot and tittle of the Florence speech.

Tulip Siddiq: My constituent, Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe, has been in prison in Iran for 18 months now. She is separated from her daughter, often in solitary confinement and denied access to medical treatment—all because she was a British citizen having a holiday in Iran. The Foreign Secretary, his Ministers and even the Prime Minister will be aware of this, because I have raised the case countless times in the House. It is not enough for the Foreign Secretary not to know the basic details of the case. It is unforgiveable to repeat the lies of the Iranian revolutionary guard, and to say, “I should be clearer”, does not cut it when it is a matter of life and death.
I have four questions for the Foreign Secretary. Is it the official position of the British Government that they are calling for the release of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe? Will the Foreign Secretary apologise for and retract the damaging comments he made about my constituent, Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe? Will the Foreign Secretary finally—after a year of failed attempts—meet Richard Ratcliffe, the husband of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe? Finally, will the Foreign Secretary reiterate that he will have a face-to-face meeting with my constituent, Nazanin, when he goes to Tehran?

Boris Johnson: I can certainly say that the Government are, of course, calling for the release of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe on humanitarian grounds, and we will continue  to do so. I can confirm that several Ministers, including the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), have met Mr Ratcliffe several times. I have just had a note from Mr Ratcliffe saying that he welcomes the clarification that we made earlier today and would like to meet, so I look forward to doing that. The hon. Lady wants to secure the release of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe. Indeed, we all want to secure the release of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe. If it is possible in the course of my trip to Tehran to meet the hon. Lady’s constituent, of course I will seek to do that. I cannot stand before the House today and guarantee that it will be possible, but I will certainly do my best to ensure that it is so.

Thomas Tugendhat: I welcome the Foreign Secretary to the House today, and I welcome some of the clarification that he has made of his comments at the Foreign Affairs Committee last week. His errors in his choice of words—however unfortunate they may seem—are, to be fair, entirely secondary and perhaps even tertiary compared with the crimes committed by the Iranian regime over nearly four decades of Khomeinite authoritarianism.
Will the Foreign Secretary now take this opportunity to address the threat that Iran poses to UK interests in the region and to address whether, after 40 years of instability and tyranny, we need a wider review of Iran policy? From holding British citizens hostage to failing to allow embassy staff to bring in secure communications: will the Foreign Secretary please explain to the House why he believes in maintaining normal diplomatic relations with the country that sponsors Hezbollah, arms Hamas, sends weapons to rain down on Riyadh and props up the murderous Assad dictatorship? How can that qualify as a nation with which we should have friendly, diplomatic relations?

Boris Johnson: My hon. Friend is right in the sense that Iran certainly poses a threat to the region and is a cause of instability. As he says, we can see that in Yemen, in its influence with Hezbollah, in Lebanon and in Syria. There is no question but that Iran needs to be constrained. But to throw out all diplomatic relations and abandon all engagement with Iran would be a profound mistake; I must tell the House my honest view about that. It slightly surprises me that my hon. Friend should take that line because the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action—the Iran nuclear deal—was an important diplomatic accomplishment, and it is still extant. It is still alive, and it is in part an achievement of British diplomacy over the past few months that it remains, in its essence, intact. We intend to preserve it because it is the best method that we have of preventing Iran from securing a nuclear weapon.
As for severing diplomatic relations entirely, that takes us to the question that so many Opposition Members have asked today. How can we secure the release of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe unless we are willing to get out there and engage with the Iranians diplomatically in order to make an effort to secure her release? That is what we are doing.

George Howarth: Some years ago, the right hon. Gentleman and I shared an accommodation pod in Baghdad, and I think he is experienced enough to know that Daesh, while I welcome  its defeat on the ground, is still active on social media platforms—indeed, he referred to that. Will he therefore press for us to be much more nimble at stifling the activities it is involved in?
On the question of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe, the right hon. Gentleman, more than most, is in a position to know that words matter, and they matter because they confer meaning. Whether he spoke clumsily or was misinformed last week about that case, will he not accept—I mean this in a good spirit—that the very least that is required is an apology?

Boris Johnson: With great respect to the right hon. Gentleman, I have answered the second point in some detail already. However, on his first point, about countering Daesh online, that is, as he knows, a subject in which the Prime Minister herself takes a keen interest. Working with the internet providers, we have taken 295,000 separate pieces of Daesh propaganda down from the web, but much more needs to be done, particularly by the social media giants.

Nadhim Zahawi: Our words do matter in here, and the members of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard court, who will be watching our proceedings today, are the ones to blame for the incarceration of this wife and mother of a three-year-old—of a British citizen who has been spuriously charged with falsehoods. If our words really do matter, it is only right that we do not play party politics, and I am looking at the shadow Front-Bench team, who were giggling a minute ago about the discomfort the Foreign Secretary may be feeling. I ask him to redouble his efforts to get Nazanin released as soon as possible.

Boris Johnson: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend, who speaks with huge authority about the region. I can certainly say that we are redoubling our efforts to secure the release of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe. He is entirely right that the focus of the House should not be on any failings or the responsibilities of the UK Government for the incarceration of this mother—[Interruption.] If the right hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) is going to continue to blame the British Government for the incarceration of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe, she is living in cloud cuckoo land—the world is absolutely upside down in the Labour party. It is the Iranian authorities against whom she should be directing her attention and her anger.

Ben Bradshaw: While the Secretary of State is correcting inaccurate statements he made to the Foreign Affairs Committee last week, would he care to correct the answer he gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) when he said he had seen no evidence of Russian meddling in the EU referendum?

Boris Johnson: The answer to that is no.

Mims Davies: I thank the Foreign Secretary for his comments clarifying the case of Mrs Ratcliffe, and I convey the concerns of my constituents. I, too, urge him to seek an urgent solution to this terrible case, if only because there is a very small child involved, and minutes and hours away from their mother really do matter. As my right hon. Friend travels to Iran, I hope he will have that in mind.
I also ask my right hon. Friend to commend all the service personnel who are working so hard against the scourge of Daesh, as all of us in our constituencies this weekend remember all our servicemen and women and the exceptional sacrifices they make.

Boris Johnson: I warmly applaud the sentiments my hon. Friend has expressed about our serving men and women. We should all take the opportunity of this statement to recognise their towering achievement in clearing Daesh out of 90% of the territory it previously occupied in Iraq and Syria.

John Woodcock: May I suggest that the Foreign Secretary is unwise to talk about deflection, when he himself is diluting scrutiny of an appalling case by wrapping it up in a hugely important counter-Daesh update to the House, which he refused, despite repeated questions, to come to the House to give after Raqqa had fallen. So, as I am forced to choose, let me ask a question about Daesh’s communications. The Foreign Secretary is right to talk about restricting the number of Daesh’s posts, but what about the counter-narrative, which is at least equally important? What new approaches will the Government take now? UK fighters will be coming back home and potentially spreading this pernicious material.

Boris Johnson: That is an extremely important and very good question. It is all very well trying to divert people away from the path of radicalisation, and we do what we can there, but one of the most difficult things is to reverse radicalisation once it has taken place, as I think the hon. Gentleman understands very well. However, we have a communications cell, as he knows, and we are working on it. We have all sorts of means to try to do these things, but the most important thing is to prevent people from being radicalised in the first place.

Edward Leigh: We have the Foreign Secretary in front of us today, and he has chosen his words very carefully, so I think we should reserve our ire for the evil of this regime. However, may I ask him about what this statement is really about, which is why Islamic State grew in the first place? Has the Foreign Office learned the lesson—here, I follow my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis)—of our catastrophic invasions of Iraq and Libya? Our deliberate destabilisation of Syria has unleashed untold misery. Has the Foreign Office really cottoned on to the fact that, if we undermine deeply unpleasant authoritarian leaders, we simply unleash totalitarian movements such as Daesh? And who suffers? The minorities in the middle east.

Boris Johnson: My hon. Friend makes an important point. If we look back at 2003, we see that, in the words of the Chilcot report, no one could say that our strategic objectives were entirely attained—I think that is putting it mildly. But there are signs of hope, and there are people across the region who are willing to take up the baton of leadership. There are national institutions being born. We must support them, we must encourage them and we must not disengage. It would be absolutely fatal for this country to turn its back on the region and to think that we can thereby somehow insulate ourselves from the problems that are germinating there. We must  engage, we must support the political process and we must be prepared to defend freedom and democracy where we can.

Liam Byrne: Given the mistakes of the past, the world owes it to the Government of Iraq to help them now win the peace, and that requires justice and prosecutions for genocide. Because Iraq is not a signatory to the treaty of Rome, those prosecutions will be difficult in Iraq, but we can prosecute the 400-plus foreign fighters who have returned to Britain. Yet, we have not sent a single one of them to The Hague. In fact, in answers to me in this House, the Attorney General said the Government are not even keeping figures on which foreign fighters have been prosecuted for what. That is, at best, slipshod. Can the Foreign Secretary give us an assurance this afternoon that he will give us a timetable for when we, like Germany, will send people to the International Criminal Court and throw against them the full weight of international law?

Boris Johnson: Again, that is an excellent point. It is a subject of recurrent anxiety to me that people are coming back and that, although we want to bring the full force of the law upon them, it is proving difficult to do so. As the right hon. Gentleman rightly says, we have not yet been able to do that in a sufficient number of cases. What we are trying to do, therefore, and this is why we passed resolution 2379, is to ensure that we have the evidence and that, where we can get a locus and find a court—he mentioned the international court in The Hague—we will have the facts and the testimony needed to send these people down.

Michael Tomlinson: On the last occasion that the House was updated on the counter-Daesh campaign, it was confirmed from the Dispatch Box that there were zero reported civilian casualties as a result of the United Kingdom’s actions in Syria and Iraq. Will the Secretary of State update the House on whether that figure is still as low? In doing so, will he join me in commending the RAF for carrying out so many campaigns against Daesh—I think second only to the United States?

Boris Johnson: I thank my hon. Friend very much. It is absolutely true that, as far as we know, and as the figures that I have seen suggest, we have no reports of civilian casualties as a result of RAF action. Obviously we cannot be sure, but we do not have any evidence to the contrary. I therefore really do pay tribute to the skill and the effort of the RAF crews—and very, very brave people they are too.

Mike Wood: May I congratulate the Foreign Secretary on the fact that 46 countries co-sponsored his UN resolution on bringing Daesh to justice, which was then unanimously supported in the Security Council? Does not this show that Britain is both leading diplomatic efforts against Daesh and rallying the international community around this important cause?

Boris Johnson: It is a vital cause, and we will continue the pressure. I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s support.

Chris Bryant: The Foreign Office says that it has three strategic objectives, the first of which is protecting our people. I fear, from the bluster that the Foreign Secretary has shown today, that he has learned absolutely nothing about what has happened in the past week. He said in his statement: “My point was that I disagreed with the Iranian view that training journalists is a crime, not that I wanted to lend any credence to Iranian allegations that Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe had been engaged in such activity.” But what he said to us as a Committee last week was this:
“When we look at what Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe was doing, she was simply teaching people journalism”.
There is not a single eight-year-old in the country who could not say to the Foreign Secretary, “This does not match what you said last week.” Not a single eight-year-old would not be able to tell the Foreign Secretary how to do his job better. I fear that, if he cannot show some contrition today, then the honest truth is that he should not be in his job, because our people are not safe.

Boris Johnson: With great respect, I think that I have answered the hon. Gentleman’s point. I was giving the Foreign Affairs Committee an account of the allegations made that I had personally heard, in the course of my intercessions, from the Iranians. I do not for one minute believe that they are true, but that is what they say. Our job now as diplomats—and I hope that we have the support of the entire House of Commons—is to get Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe released. The best way to do that is not to score party political points but to concentrate our energies and our criticism on those who are actually responsible for her incarceration.

Alex Chalk: Taking the fight to Daesh in Syria was a difficult but right thing to do, eroding its territorial base and resources, but in some ways that was the easy bit, because the warped ideology endures. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we must continue to support the security services, including those in my constituency, who are skilfully and conscientiously taking the fight to the extremists online?

Boris Johnson: I completely agree. The fight online can be every bit as valuable in saving lives as the struggle in Iraq and Syria.

Mike Gapes: Instead of misrepresenting what he said to the Foreign Affairs Committee last week, would it not better if the Foreign Secretary were to write to the Committee withdrawing and correcting his remarks so that they are no longer on the record?

Boris Johnson: I have dealt with that point abundantly.

Rachel Maclean: May I welcome the UK Government’s leadership in the fight against Daesh and thank the Foreign Secretary for updating the House? Just as we show leadership in this area, is it not right therefore that we bring forward more leadership in the areas of cyber-security and online radicalisation? Will he update the House with more detail of the measures that are being taken to tackle this scourge that affects our young people’s minds?

Boris Johnson: I thank my hon. Friend for her questions. As I said earlier, we are stepping up our activity with the communications cell that we have, but also trying to work with our international friends and partners to get internet companies to take down pre-emptively much of the pollution that appears online. That is where our activities are directed at the moment. We need more co-operation from the social media companies.

Ian Murray: I speak as a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, and the only conclusion that many in the country can come to after the right hon. Gentleman’s performance at the Committee last week is not only that he is ill-equipped to be Foreign Secretary but that he is, indeed, an international embarrassment. He has been forced to come to this House today and include a statement on Mrs Ratcliffe as part of his statement on countering Daesh, and he has not corrected the record. What he said in his statement is completely contrary to what he said at the Committee last week. So, in response to my hon. Friends the Members for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) and for Ilford South (Mike Gapes), I give him one last opportunity to correct the record, do himself a favour, do the Foreign Office a favour, and do the family a favour.

Boris Johnson: Perhaps for the sake of brevity I can tell the hon. Gentleman that Richard Ratcliffe himself has welcomed the clarification that I have offered today, and I think I am content with that. We will push on on that basis. I may say to the hon. Gentleman that he sat through that Committee in a state of glassy indifference and made no remark at all about anything that I had said, either then or two days afterwards.

Wes Streeting: Our armed forces can be proud of the work they have done in countering Daesh, as we are proud of them, but there is no way that this House can be proud of the conduct of our Foreign Secretary. He is quite right, as others have been right to argue, that the responsibility for the detainment of a British citizen is solely the responsibility of the Iranian regime, but with the ill-judged and inaccurate remarks he made to the Foreign Affairs Committee last week, the only person in this House who did the bidding of the Iranian regime was the Foreign Secretary. What is so egregious about this whole affair is that he did not take ownership of his mistake and did not seek to quickly rectify it; indeed, he has come here this afternoon and cannot even bring himself to show an ounce of contrition or even make an apology. This is not a criticism of the Conservative party, and certainly not a criticism of the finest diplomatic service in the world; it is a criticism firmly of the Foreign Secretary, who does not have the care and attention necessary to do one of the most important jobs in Government—so why is he still in the job?

Boris Johnson: I must respectfully repeat the point I have made several times now, which is that I have clarified the remarks I made to the Foreign Affairs   Committee. I have also pointed out the most important conclusion of today, which is that nothing I said has had any impact whatever—contrary to the assertions that have been made repeatedly by the Opposition—on the judicial proceedings taking place in Tehran. I think that we should be working together to secure the release of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe, and that is certainly what we are doing.

Layla Moran: My constituents, Colin and Rosemary Gay, are family members of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe. The fact is that the family have been worried sick by the Foreign Secretary’s irresponsible comments. On a human level, is he at all sorry for the rollercoaster of emotions he has caused Nazanin and her family this week, and could he at least apologise to them today?

Boris Johnson: Of course I am sorry if any words of mine have been so taken out of context and so misconstrued as to cause any kind of anxiety for the family of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe—of course I am. But the most important thing is that I do not believe—and I have this from the Iranians themselves—that those words had any impact on the judicial process. We are going to work flat out to secure the release of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe. I am very happy to have been able to make that clarification to the House today, and I am delighted that, as I say, Richard Ratcliffe welcomes the clarification that I have made. If the hon. Lady would pass on my thoughts to her constituents who are the family of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe, I would be very grateful.

Anneliese Dodds: It is precisely because many of us have, for many months, been working to try to secure Nazanin’s release that we are so upset about the mistake that has been made. I accept that, perhaps inadvertently, we are aware of the impact of her detention on her and her family, and that that is occasioning the extent of our dismay. This is not an attempt at politicisation; it is genuine upset.
I hope that the Foreign Secretary will now go to look at the website of the Iranian judicial authorities, where his remarks are repeated for all to see. I think it is difficult, therefore, for him to absolve himself of responsibility. We know, and I hope that the Foreign Secretary is aware, that the Iranian authorities do not deal with ambiguity. They need clarity—clear words. Anyone who has engaged with them, as I and many others have done over many months to try to secure Nazanin’s release—we have been critical of them—will be aware of their approach and know that they need clarity. We need six words from the Foreign Secretary: “I’m sorry; I made a mistake.” Please give us those six words now.

Boris Johnson: I say respectfully to the hon. Lady that I think the mistake, the error and the fault lie with the Iranian authorities. It is to them that she should direct her anger.

Points of Order

Ian Murray: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Foreign Secretary has come to the House this afternoon to provide a statement clarifying the comments he made to the Foreign Affairs Committee last week. He said in his statement—my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) has already read this out: “My point was that I disagreed with the Iranian view that training journalists was a crime, not that I lent any credence to Iranian allegations that Mrs Zaghari Ratcliffe had been engaged in such activity.” The transcript from the Committee says:
“When we look at what Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe was doing, she was simply teaching people journalism, as I understand it”.
Those two statements are inaccurate and contradictory.
In addition, Madam Deputy Speaker, could you give me some advice? The Foreign Secretary accused me of performing on the Foreign Affairs Committee with “glassy indifference”—I think those were the words he used. May I just say to the Foreign Secretary, if he does not like me asking questions about Iran and US sanctions, that my expression was one of incredulity at his incompetence at answering the questions and not glassy indifference?

Eleanor Laing: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. On his first point, as the House knows, it is not for me to opine on this matter. We have had quite a considerable time this afternoon during which these questions have been put to the Foreign Secretary, and the Foreign Secretary has now answered those questions. If there is a difference of opinion, that is in the nature of political debate and not a matter for the Chair.
On the second point, the hon. Gentleman has put a description rather different from the one that the Foreign Secretary gave of him. Once again, that is a matter of  opinion, and the two opinions have been expressed. It is not for me to rule which one is correct.

Stephen Gethins: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Earlier today, during the urgent question on the Brexit sectoral analysis, the hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray), who is aware that I was going to make this point of order, said, quite rightly, that the Secretary of State for Scotland had said at Scotland Office questions that the sectoral analysis of the impact on the economy of Scotland existed and had been shared with the Scottish Government. My colleagues in the Scottish Government had not, and have not, seen such analysis despite repeated requests. Madam Deputy Speaker, can you give us some advice on how we can correct the record?

Eleanor Laing: I appreciate the point that the hon. Gentleman is making, but, once again, it is not a matter for the Chair. He asks for my advice on correcting the record, and I think that he has just put his issue on the record. It will be noted, and I am quite sure that those on the Treasury Bench will note it.

BILL PRESENTED

Trade Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Secretary Liam Fox, supported by the Prime Minister, Secretary Boris Johnson Secretary David Davis, Secretary David Mundell, Secretary Alun Cairns, Secretary James Brokenshire, Secretary Michael Gove, Secretary Priti Patel and Greg Hands, presented a Bill to make provision about the implementation of international trade agreements; to make provision establishing the Trade Remedies Authority and conferring functions on it; and to make provision about the collection and disclosure of information relating to trade.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Monday 13 November, and to be printed (Bill 122) with explanatory notes (Bill 122-EN).

LEASEHOLD REFORM

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

Justin Madders: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision about the regulation of the purchase of freehold by leaseholders; to introduce a system for establishing the maximum charge for such freehold; to make provision about the award of legal costs in leasehold property tribunal cases; to establish a compensation scheme for cases where misleading particulars have led to certain leasehold agreements; and for connected purposes.
The working title of this Bill is the Leasehold Reform Bill, but it has been suggested to me that a better title might be the Leasehold Emancipation Bill. Although I welcome the Government’s recent consultation on ending unfair leasehold practices, and I urge Ministers to hold their nerve and end this outrageous practice, sadly there is little to suggest that the Government are going to address the ongoing situation of leaseholders, many of whom feel trapped in their homes.
I hope that the genuine cross-party support for this Bill will encourage the Government to facilitate its passage through Parliament, or at least to come up with a Bill of their own to deal with these proposals. On cross-party support, I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the hon. Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley) and my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick), who have been true champions of the leasehold community.
The principal aim of the Bill is to deliver a fair and simple mechanism to help tens of thousands of our constituents to escape from their current leasehold agreements. Before I set out how that will work in practice, I will briefly explain the background. Many of my constituents, and those of other hon. Members, have spoken about how they bought what they had thought were their dream homes on new housing developments, built by household names, more often than not in the last decade or so. Many, but not all, of the buyers knew that the property was being sold to them on a leasehold basis. Between the salespeople and the solicitors recommended to them by the developer, however, very few were fully aware of the finer detail of what they were signing up to.
Almost all were left with the impression that they would have first refusal on the freehold of the property and that it would be possible to purchase the freehold for a reasonable price. However, the figures that were quoted for the purchase of the freehold by the salespeople working for the developers bear little relation to the costs that people were quoted later on, because, shortly after they moved in, the freehold of their property was sold, without their knowledge or consent, to a third party that they had never heard of. In many cases, the freehold to their house was moved offshore, so that what they had thought was their home became, in fact, the property of a string of shady companies operating from a tax haven. Often, it is impossible to say who the ultimate beneficiary is.
Under the terms of the lease, to continue to live in their own home, the buyers are charged an annual ground rent, which, in some cases, doubles every 10 years,  taking an initially modest sum of a few hundred pounds to an exorbitant annual fee of thousands of pounds within their lifetime. In some cases, that renders the property unsellable.
The ground rent, it should be pointed out, is separate from and in addition to a service or maintenance charge. Although the latter charges pay for something clearly definable, I have never been given a satisfactory answer by a developer as to exactly what ground rent pays for, other than to provide an additional cash cow for the builder and a revenue stream for the freeholder. The person living in the house gets absolutely nothing in return for their annual payments.
When those living in their leasehold home inquire whether the new freehold owner is willing to sell them the freehold of their home, they are often told no. Sometimes, they receive no response at all, and I have had to threaten freeholders with naming them on the Floor of the House just to elicit a response. Such responses are not consistent either: neighbours in almost identical houses in my constituency have been quoted wildly different prices to purchase their freeholds.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy) has brought to my attention such a situation in her constituency. The company, Keepmoat, has asked many residents to pay huge additional sums to avoid their freeholds being sold to a private company. At the same time, others were told the freehold was unavailable, yet a lucky few were actually given theirs for free. Such an inconsistent and unfair approach would no longer be possible under the Bill.
When the leaseholder eventually receives the quote for purchasing the freehold, they are often quoted an astronomical sum and are told that it is non-negotiable. These quotes are always many times higher than any figure the developer’s sales staff have told them. The same has been true when residents of a block of flats have collectively sought to purchase their freehold and take responsibility for the shared areas themselves.
Instead of the simple purchase of the freehold for a set price that the developer led them to expect they could take advantage of, the leaseholder enters the convoluted and expensive process called enfranchisement. This is a process of incessant horse-trading, which at present exists to establish correct valuations and provides a lucrative market for surveyors and lawyers. The provisions of the lease often require the person wishing to buy the freehold to pay the freeholder’s costs in dealing with the application. We have the indefensible situation of people footing the bill for the costs of professionals, whose job is actually to maximise the amount of money they will take off those people.
The Bill’s first aim is to introduce a simple and fair scheme, with a clear and transparent statutory pricing model, and the amount for a leaseholder to purchase their freehold would be capped at no more than 10 times the annual ground rent. At the moment, leaseholders are often quoted costs of over 100 times the ground rent to purchase the freehold. We can change this: such a system already exists in many other countries, including Scotland and Northern Ireland, and I believe it is time that people in England and Wales had the same rights.
Such a system would involve a simple formula for calculating the value of the freehold, based on the ground rent and the number of years left on the lease,  with a cap on the maximum payable. This would be set out in statute so that everybody knows at the outset what they are dealing with. While this would come as very bad news for surveyors and lawyers in this field, it would provide a mechanism to enable our constituents finally to own their own homes in a straightforward way and provide security for their futures. Currently, too many leaseholders are prevented from exercising their rights because they cannot afford to do so. One recent example was of a retired couple paying £38,000 to buy their freehold. Such people are being ripped off when they first buy the house, and then ripped off again when they try to buy the freehold.
The Bill’s second provision seeks to rebalance the awarding of costs at leasehold property tribunals. The system as it stands reinforces the existing imbalance of power between the leaseholder and freeholder, and the Bill ensures that a leaseholder will not have to pay the freeholder’s costs just to enforce their own rights under the lease.
Finally, I have deep concerns about both the information provided to purchasers by developers and the advice given by solicitors. Solicitors are often recommended by the developer, which is why I am calling for a statutory compensation scheme. I have labelled this scandal “the PPI of the house building industry”, and that phrase has caught on precisely because of the similarities. We need a similar process to compensate those who have fallen victim to this scam.
In some cases, I have evidence that developers insisted that purchasers used solicitors nominated by them if the sale was to go ahead, or offered large incentives, including paying for the leaseholder’s legal fees. In many other cases, buyers were put under pressure to use a recommended solicitor because they were told that there was a short window of time available to complete the purchase and that only a solicitor from its panel would be able to complete the relevant searches within this timeframe. This has meant that many of my constituents ended up using firms whose advice on these leases was that they were standard documents. Such a document  may have been standard for that particular development, but that does not make it fair or reasonable.
The third element of my Bill therefore seeks to establish in law a system of compensation where misleading particulars have led to certain leasehold agreements. Alongside this, I would expect there to be a full independent inquiry to look at the relationships between developers, freeholders, finance companies and conveyancers and to establish how a system was allowed to develop that has left so many innocent people feeling ripped off. It is time we held to account the guilty men and women who must have known that this scam would ultimately be at the cost of their customers.
The leasehold scandal is one from which nobody emerges with credit. The Government, lenders, freeholders and lawyers have all played a role, but I must reserve the lion’s share of the obloquy for developers who have deliberately and systematically created a set of toxic assets, with those left in the lurch finding that the biggest purchase of their life is a pup. When people bought their houses, they thought they were doing just that—buying their home. They never contemplated for a moment that the true owner of their home was actually someone—they might never know their identity—who could then sell on their interest in the property to somebody else without their knowledge or consent. We need to give people the chance to escape that trap fairly.
It will take years for the stench of ignominy that envelops guilty developers to wear off, but this Bill may help in that process. Until we come up with an effective way to release people from the shackles of leasehold, the authors of this injustice will never be forgiven. I commend this motion to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Justin Madders, Jim Fitzpatrick, Sir Peter Bottomley, David Hanson, Ian Austin, Mary Glindon, Justin Tomlinson, Ruth George, Antoinette Sandbach, Bill Esterson, Gareth Thomas and Derek Twigg present the Bill.
Justin Madders accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 2 February 2018, and to be printed (Bill 121).

BACKBENCH BUSINESS

TEMPORARY ACCOMMODATION

Siobhain McDonagh: I beg to move,
That this House notes with concern the increased use by local authorities of temporary accommodation for 77,240 homeless families in priority need, including 120,540 children or expected children; further notes more than a quarter of those households have been placed in temporary accommodation in a different local government area; further notes the draft consultation on a homelessness code of guidance for local authorities; is aware of the pressure on local authorities and the increasing demands that they face; and calls on the Government to provide a framework for monitoring and enforcement to ensure the appropriate level of quality and location of temporary accommodation, to require that local authorities appoint a designated officer for homeless families in their area and to ensure that homeless families have appropriate contact with health, education and social services when they are in temporary accommodation.
I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting today’s debate on such an incredibly important issue.
Madam Deputy Speaker,
“Our housing market is broken.”—[Official Report, 7 February 2017; Vol. 621, c. 229.]
That was the damning verdict of the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government earlier this year. The 9,712 residents on the housing register where my constituency is based, in the London borough of Merton, would absolutely agree with him. Perhaps the most visible indication of the broken housing market are the thousands of people sleeping on our streets, but the homelessness crisis facing this country is far greater than that. It is also hidden—hidden in hostels, hidden in bed and breakfasts, and hidden at the heart of an industrial estate. If a homeless applicant has nowhere to stay and is in priority need, their local authority has a duty to ensure that immediate temporary accommodation is made available. That is the reality for 78,180 households across the country, where 120,170 children do not have a permanent home. That staggering figure is rising fast.

Frank Field: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for securing this debate and for giving way. Does she accept that, through universal credit, we have a state recruiter of people who will be homeless? We know that more people will be hungry. The Government are not collecting any figures on that or on homelessness, which is the theme of her debate. Is that not a shameful reflection of the Government’s concern?

Siobhain McDonagh: I agree with my right hon. Friend and thank him for all his work over the decades for the most forgotten in our society. The truth is that universal credit will be yet another driver that forces families out of the private rented sector, which is not where most of them should be in the first place.
The staggering number of homeless families is rising fast, with an additional 960 households in temporary accommodation in the last quarter alone. Incidentally, that figure has risen quarter on quarter since 2010, with the number of children in temporary accommodation increasing by 66% since the Conservatives came to power.
Despite public misperception, housing benefit data suggests that a third of householders in temporary accommodation in England are in work, with the proportion rising to half of householders in temporary accommodation in London. Three quarters of families in temporary accommodation in London have been there for more than six months, with one in 10 there for a not-so-temporary five years. That is without mentioning cases in Harrow and Camden involving households in temporary accommodation for a baffling 19 years. Of course those are extreme cases, but the fact is that more than 100 councils across the country have households who have been living in temporary accommodation for more than a year.
May I make it clear that the purpose of this debate is not to bash local authorities, which are dealing with very difficult situations as best they can? I give particular praise to the head of Merton’s housing department, Steve Langley, whom I have known for more than 20 years. I have seen the distress that it causes him to place families hundreds of miles away from home and in accommodation that he would not accept for his own family. I thank him for his public service.
There is a cost to the taxpayer. In November 2016, the BBC reported that councils in Britain had spent more than £3.5 billion on temporary accommodation over the past five years. The net cost has tripled in the past three years alone.
Now that the scene is set, I will deal with three main reasons why I applied for the debate. I will start with out-of-borough temporary housing. I will then move on to the need to enforce legislation, and finish by assessing the standard of temporary accommodation for the 78,000 families affected.
More than 28% of households in temporary accommodation are housed outside their local authority area. That represents a remarkable increase of 248% between March 2011 and March 2017. The figure for London boroughs increases to a staggering 36% of households, and there has been a fivefold increase in households placed outside the capital since 2012. Last year, the London borough of Harrow temporarily moved residents as far as Bradford, Wolverhampton and even Glasgow.
Birmingham is a regular recipient of residents, and the scale of the problem is illustrated by a letter from Birmingham City Council to all London councils that calls for the practice to end because its resources are at breaking point. For the families, that is 140 miles away from their homes, their children’s schools, and their friends, families and communities. Only last Thursday, my office took a call at 5 pm from a lady who was told she was to go off to Birmingham with her four children under the age of eight. It took a collection from the parents at her children’s school to pay for a Travelodge that night before she was offered a one-bedroom flat for herself and her four children the next day.
Similarly, at my advice surgery last Friday, I met a full-time nurse at St Helier Hospital who had just been offered temporary accommodation 44 miles away in Luton. Meanwhile, for a homeless resident in Kensington and Chelsea, there is a remarkable 72% chance that their temporary accommodation will be outside the borough. It therefore might seem odd that a Communities and Local Government Committee report states:
“Housing people away from their homes and support networks should be an action of last resort.”

Frank Field: I apologise for intervening again, but I am intrigued and appalled by the record that my hon. Friend describes. It is worse than the Poor Law. Under the Poor Law, people were sent back to the village it was believed they came from; under the current rules, people are sent to any old village or city, provided that the local authority can dump families on them.

Siobhain McDonagh: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right.
Currently, 22,000 households face such a “last resort” and are placed in temporary housing outside their borough. Under the Housing Act 1996, when a local authority undertakes its housing duty to people by placing them in temporary accommodation in another borough, it should notify the receiving borough that it has done so. That notice should be in writing and made at least 14 days before the household is placed in the area. Is the Department confident that each household is accounted for in their new, temporary home?
I have received a letter from the chief executive of Thurrock Council, which had 183 placements from London boroughs between April 2016 to February 2017. She said:
“Unfortunately, our experience has often been that the notifications are either not sent or sent to the wrong contact within the Council.
Over the past couple of years housing departments have noticed an increase in the number of cases who report that they were placed in another borough from London without the formal notification being received.”
Housing outside a borough is not unlawful, but councils are legally obliged to ensure that relocation is suitable and appropriate to a family’s circumstances, taking account of potential disruption to education, medical needs and employment. Does the Minister agree that processes must be put in place, and enforced, to ensure that a receiving local authority is fully aware of a family’s arrival and that they can receive the healthcare, education and welfare support to which they are entitled once they are there?
Let us consider the enforcement of legislation. In 2004, the Homelessness (Suitability of Accommodation) (England) Order 2003 came into force, providing that homeless families with children should not be placed in a B&B except in an emergency. If such an emergency were to arise, it could last for no longer than six weeks. In June this year, 6,660 households were being temporarily housed in B&Bs. That was twice as many as in 2011, and three times as many as when the Conservatives came to power in 2010. A deplorable 2,710 of those households trapped in B&Bs include children. For 1,200 of those families, their living hell has gone on for far longer than the six-week legal limit. The local authorities that are housing them are, quite simply, breaking the law.
One of these families joins us in the Gallery today. Kelly’s family were evicted earlier this year, making them homeless. Sutton Council placed Kelly, her husband and her two young children in a single room in a B&B in Wimbledon. They had so little space that Kelly’s stepson had to leave the family home. For 10 weeks, the family was left in one tiny room, hidden from society in a B&B. No one told Kelly when the nightmare would end. After 10 long weeks, Kelly is now finally out of the B&B, although her temporary home is not much better. Kelly tells me that she simply does not feel safe there, and I completely understand why. The oven does not work,  the electrics are precarious, and the flimsy door is a precarious barrier to the outside world. Only yesterday, Sutton Council’s planning department knocked on her door to tell her that there was no planning permission to allow the flat she lives in to exist.

David Lammy: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the manner in which she is leading this debate. In the sixth richest economy in the world, does she think it is an abuse of human rights that we have so many people living in these Dickensian conditions?

Siobhain McDonagh: It is an abuse of human rights. There is a moral duty on us all to bring a resolution—this is possible—to the situation.
Kelly’s daughter is old enough to question but too young to understand the situation. When she returns from school, she queries why none of her friends have to share a room with their parents. Both Kelly and her husband hold down good jobs, but she tells me that she simply does not know how to get out of this situation. If she complains, will she be moved far away from her job and her children’s school?
Kelly is not alone, however. Birmingham City Council currently houses 85 families with children in B&Bs for longer than six weeks, while Croydon, Harrow, Redbridge and Southwark local authorities have all housed hundreds of families with children in B&Bs for longer than the legal limit of six weeks over the past year alone.
Take Renee and her sister Jade, two young brave girls whom I had the pleasure of meeting in Parliament just a fortnight ago. After living in their friend’s house for over a year, Renee and Jade’s family became homeless and had to move to temporary accommodation in Acton, away from their friends, family and school. A double bed, single bed and a bunk bed filled their tiny room, with their bathroom and kitchen shared with another family. They tell me that they felt brushed under the carpet because they were unseen by society, too ashamed to open their curtains to the outside world. This makes Renee’s recent GCSE success even more remarkable and I congratulate her on her well-deserved achievement. Does the Minister agree that a B&B is no place for Renee—in fact for any family—for longer than six weeks, and that a law against that is superfluous if there is no way to enforce it? What tangible changes would he suggest to ensure that local authorities abide by the laws that this House has agreed?
Behind the facts and figures that I have described today are real homes, real people and real families—and, in my constituency of Mitcham and Morden, one very real building named Connect House. At my advice surgery, the name Connect House has become an increasingly regular feature over the past year, with constituent after constituent calling me for help, desperate to escape what they describe as their living nightmare.
It is incredibly difficult to summarise the conditions at Connect House without visiting it in person. I therefore invite each and every right hon. and hon. Member in the Chamber to join me in Committee Room 9 after the debate, where I will be releasing a video so that each of them, as well as the general public, can see with their own eyes the appalling conditions that the 84 families living inside Connect House find themselves in. For now, however, I will do my best to find the right words.
Willow Lane industrial estate is home to a plethora of successful businesses in my constituency. With its businesses ranging from the manufacturer of timber windows to motor works, and from scaffolders to joiners, it is one of the busiest industrial estates in south London. Almost two years ago, however, there was a peculiar change on the estate. The businesses began to notice prams being pushed past their front doors and children playing while their lorries and vans raced through. They began to notice hundreds of residents using their working industrial estate as a home.
Connect House is at the heart of Willow Lane industrial estate. It houses 84 families who have been placed there by four local authorities: Bromley, Sutton, Croydon and Merton. There is little collaboration between the authorities as to who is placed in Connect House, which heightens the danger of vulnerable residents being placed among completely inappropriate neighbours. To reach the nearest amenities, the residents have to walk through the industrial estate itself. Cars line the pavement, forcing families with prams or wheelchairs into the lorry-filled road. It is fair to say that local workers simply do not expect 84 families to live within their industrial estate.
Waste surrounds Connect House because its industrial bins are ill equipped for the needs of the residents inside. This naturally attracts rats and foxes, and litter is strewn across the adjacent car park. Litter is also found throughout the building itself, causing considerable damage to both the building and its few facilities. The building is not staffed at evenings or weekends, and one resident found herself locked out in the middle of the industrial estate when she arrived back at night. A single key fob is allocated to each room, but additional fobs come at a deposit of £20. It is no wonder that young children have escaped into the dangerous industrial estate outside.
As for those who are able to enter, one resident told me of the danger that she and her daughter were in when a man was able to follow her right to her front door. Incidentally, the doors have neither a spy hole nor a door chain for safety. For a vulnerable family, their security is nothing more than the thin door separating their room from the industrial estate outside. Importantly, there is no communal room in Connect House, and neither is there anywhere for children to go, other than their tiny bedroom, where they are so often forced to share a bed with their parents and/or siblings. Residents complain of children running through the corridors at night, while the car park outside the building has been described as a playground in the evenings. Does the Minister agree that an industrial estate car park is no fit playground for the hundreds of children inside Connect House?
Residents and businesses have described Connect House as an “accident waiting to happen” and a “death trap”, yet this is a property that Bromley Council has not even visited, despite placing families there. It argues that there is simply not enough time or resource to do so, and that in its own words:
“This is compounded by the fact that a significant number”
of properties
“are out of the borough”.
The building’s remote location means that there are no immediate shops or amenities for the residents. The location is so remote, in fact, that even an ambulance  was unable to find it when called by a heavily pregnant lady housed there who had to have her baby in the car park outside. It truly fills me with sadness to tell this Chamber that the baby is no longer with us.
The property provides the landlord with an estimated—and simply staggering—£1.25 million to £1.5 million of taxpayer’s money each year, with the local authorities charged between £30 and £40 per room per night. Connect House is therefore a 21st century, multi-million pound death trap in the middle of my constituency. In the Gallery today sit dozens of residents from Connect House. They have joined us here to have their voices heard, to find out why the Government consider Connect House to be a suitable place for them to live, and to listen to what changes the Minister will propose before this death trap takes its next victim. From down here in the Chamber, I would like to tell their experiences, their challenges and their stories. Take Laura. She shares a room with her teenage daughter, despite having a spinal disability. Her room is so small that she had to move items out just to show me inside. She sleeps in her bed in the day so that her daughter can sleep in a bed at night.
Then there is Alice. She has a three-hour return journey to collect her children from school, finishing at the tram stop outside the industrial estate. It is dark by the time they return and so, before making the final walk home, Alice and her children pause to pray that they will make it safely. Finally, there is Sarah. Her two children are not yet of school age, so they are confined—day in, day out—to the industrial estate. It is no wonder that when Sarah’s baby boy was taken to the doctor’s with a wheezy cough, the doctor put it down to the constant fumes he was inhaling from the factories outside the window.
There are Connect Houses in so many of our constituencies, and today is our chance to shine a light on them. So what can be done? If there are tangible actions that should be taken from this debate, let them be as follows.
First, does the Minister agree that if a local authority is forced to house residents temporarily in another local authority area, it is fundamental that a designated officer in the receiving authority should be clearly informed of those people’s arrival so that their safety and welfare can be ensured? Secondly, I cannot help questioning why we have laws and regulations on temporary accommodation if they are simply not enforced. Does the Minister agree that local authorities should be held to account under the regulations on which the House has decided? Assuming that he does, may I ask how he proposes to ensure that families like Kelly’s are no longer illegally housed in B&Bs for more than six weeks?
Finally, do the Minister and colleagues agree that there should be a minimum standard for temporary accommodation, and that the conditions that I have described are simply not fit for purpose? I encourage anyone who is in any doubt about that to join me in Committee Room 9 after the debate.
The 78,180 families who are in temporary accommodation are hidden from our society, whether in a hostel, in a B&B, or lost in an industrial estate. Today many of those families sit proudly in the House of Commons. Today their stories will be hidden no more, and I urge each of us to be their voice and to call for change.

Bob Blackman: I congratulate the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) on securing the debate, and on the passionate way in which she delivered her speech and described what is going on in her constituency. I can almost certainly say that I agree with nearly every word that she uttered in expressing her desire for regulation—for proper, appropriate measures to be applied to temporary accommodation.
The present position has three aspects. When people who face homelessness approach the local authority, that is the crisis point. They have nowhere to live and, if they are “priority need” homeless, the authority must find them somewhere to live immediately. That is expensive, and the accommodation is often not suitable: in London, people are likely to be offered accommodation way outside the area in which they have been living.
There are two other elements. First, as the hon. Lady said, there are families who have been living in temporary accommodation for 19 years or more. Given that most people who own their homes move, on average, every seven years, it is absurd for someone to be in temporary accommodation for that length of time. We need to take appropriate action. Secondly, there are people who literally have nowhere to live except with friends, perhaps sleeping on sofas. That is a hidden form of homelessness, because it is clearly a form of temporary accommodation.
I am pleased to say that my Homelessness Reduction Act 2017, which secured support from the Front Benches of both parties and, I think, from Members in all parts of the House, will come into force on 1 April 2018. It will produce some remedies for the problems described by the hon. Lady. First, as a result of a Government concession, local authorities that offer either permanent or temporary accommodation must visit and inspect the premises to confirm that they are fit for accommodation and fit for purpose, and we should all ensure that our local authorities honour that requirement.

Siobhain McDonagh: There can be anything in law, but if it is not enforced, it does not work. Unless there is an organisation like Ofsted or the Care Quality Commission for housing, it is not going to work.

Bob Blackman: The hon. Lady is absolutely right: unless laws are enforced, there is not much point in having them. I ask the Minister to say in his response to the debate what he is doing to ensure that the existing rules are enforced. Some of the cases that the hon. Lady mentioned clearly fall foul of the existing requirements on local authorities, so those requirements are not being properly enforced.
We must deal with the consequences of the temporary accommodation crisis. In London about £600 million a year is spent on providing temporary accommodation. Most of that accommodation is not fit for purpose, and is certainly not fit for the accommodation needs of the individuals placed there. We must seek to reduce that bill dramatically, and how to achieve that is clear.
Under the Homelessness Reduction Act, anyone approaching the crisis of homelessness will be able to approach their local authority two months before they face that crisis. The aim is that no one should become  homeless at all—that the local authority should take the appropriate action prior to someone’s becoming homeless. If local authorities carry out their duties properly, we will not have that crisis of temporary accommodation, which is incredibly expensive. That is a cost-effective way of addressing the challenge.

Mohammad Yasin: I welcome the Homelessness Reduction Act. Is any extra money available for councils to deal with the extra demand they will get as a result of it?

Bob Blackman: The Government have given extra money: £81 million over a two-year period for the implementation of the Act. That might not be sufficient, but we can bet our bottom dollar that the Communities and Local Government Committee, which is going to look at the implementation of the Act, will be on the Minister’s case to make sure that extra funding is provided if it is required. If local authorities do their job properly, they will make savings in the temporary accommodation budget, which should then balance up the costs of their requirements under the Act.
The greatest cause of homelessness is the end of an assured shorthold tenancy. They usually run for six months and at the end of that period families often have to move. The solution is clear: we need longer tenancies and more security of tenure for families, but also assurances to landlords that they will get paid their rent and that the tenants will behave themselves in accordance with the contract they have signed. I ask the Minister to update us on where we are going with lengthening tenancies, which would dramatically reduce homelessness at a stroke. Perhaps we can do that.

Kevin Hollinrake: Does my hon. Friend agree that not all tenants want to sign a longer tenancy, as it ties them into something they might not want to be tied into for so long? What we need is asymmetric tenancies, so the landlord signs up to a longer period—three years, perhaps—but the tenant can have a break clause to leave earlier, which would encourage them to sign that longer tenancy agreement.

Bob Blackman: Clearly, any tenancy agreement signed would have break clauses in by mutual convenience. That would be appropriate.
Large numbers of children and young people are currently in temporary accommodation, and for far too long. What are the Government doing to make sure that children are put into permanent accommodation with their families in an appropriate way?

Ruth Cadbury: The hon. Gentleman made an important point about landlords being assured that their rent would be paid. Was he not present for the debates last week and the week before on universal credit? We have increasing evidence that the universal credit system, with its built-in delay of six weeks, is making it more and more difficult for landlords to get the rent that they are owed.

Bob Blackman: The reality is that under universal credit, a tenant can choose to have the rent paid directly to the landlord, and I would certainly recommend that families in this position choose that option. I also  believe that the delay in paying universal credit should be reduced from six weeks to four weeks. That is my personal view, which I have advanced to Ministers.
On the question of solutions, I have already mentioned the idea of introducing a rent deposit guarantee project and a help to rent project. Many households face the crisis of not being able to raise a deposit in order to rent a property, and they become homeless as a result. It is estimated that by investing some £31 million a year, we could help 32,000 families in England alone to raise a deposit and secure a property at a rent they could afford. That could save the temporary accommodation budget £1.8 billion over a three-year period. That seems to be a sensible route to follow. What lobbying is the Minister doing of his friends in the Treasury on that issue? That proposal could clearly save money, save a lot of angst and perhaps save lives.
I also want to talk about the rise in rough sleeping. I applaud the Government for setting out the need to halve the number of rough sleepers in this country—and, indeed, to eliminate rough sleeping completely—but the reality is that it is on the rise and we need to take urgent action.

Lyn Brown: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Bob Blackman: I have given way several times already, and I know that many colleagues want to speak in the debate.
Will my hon. Friend the Minister update the House on the question of rough sleepers—in particular, the question of their designation? In London, only about half the rough sleepers are UK citizens; a large number in London and beyond are from outside the United Kingdom. This is a serious problem. People are coming to this country, and they may have been trafficked or whatever: we need to get to the bottom of why they are sleeping rough on our streets today.
These are my asks for the Minister. Bed-and-breakfast accommodation is the most expensive form of temporary accommodation, and its use is on the rise. Obviously, we need to exclude the Grenfell Tower situation, because that involves a very different position, but bed-and-breakfast accommodation is an expensive and unsatisfactory means of accommodating families. The solutions to these issues will be key. It is more than 40 years since we built 250,000 properties in this country. That is the fault of Governments of all persuasions. We clearly need to build 300,000 properties just to deal with the need that exists right now. Will the Minister update us on how we are improving the level of house building in this country, so that we can address the fundamental issue of providing enough homes for the people who want to live in them?

Several hon. Members: rose—

Eleanor Laing: Order. The House will be aware that a great many people want to speak in this short debate, so I must impose a time limit of seven minutes.

David Lammy: I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak and to have supported my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) in calling for this important  debate—her opening speech was fantastic. I hope that the Government are listening, because what Members across the House are seeing in their constituencies amounts to a serious crisis.
It is no longer accurate to talk of “temporary” accommodation; in the past three months, I have represented two families in my constituency who have been living in so-called temporary accommodation for over 10 years. Temporary accommodation is becoming permanent accommodation. If we look at the broader context, that is happening due to a huge shortage of social housing across the country.
One family in my constituency have been living in temporary accommodation for 14 years. Another family have been there for 17 years. That family have seen their children grow up in temporary accommodation—the only home that the children have ever known, from their first day at primary school to their first day at secondary school. Next year, the 18th birthday of the eldest child will be celebrated in this so-called temporary accommodation. Another of my constituents has been placed in temporary accommodation with her son, who suffers from cerebral palsy. The room is too small to accommodate the equipment he needs. Another two cases came into my postbag this month involving two households who have lived in temporary accommodation since 2010.
There are 3,140 households living in temporary accommodation in my borough of Haringey, and let me be clear about the conditions in which people are being housed. If the Minister has not visited an emergency accommodation hostel, I would be happy to facilitate a visit. In the past couple of months, I have asked the Department about the state of temporary accommodation, but it seems unable to answer me. I hope that the Minister can tell the House today what he failed to tell me last month. How much of our temporary accommodation stock is unfit for human habitation or is in disrepair and requires refurbishment? How many children are living in inappropriate accommodation? What is the average length of time that a household spends in temporary accommodation? How many households have spent more than a year in temporary accommodation—or more than two years, or three years? How many households in temporary accommodation are being moved into a permanent social home? In my borough of Haringey, the wait for social housing is around 10 years even for those families in the direst need of a home.
What will be the impact of the freeze in the local housing allowance? As night follows day, households currently renting in the private sector will become homeless as they fall into rent arrears, and the number of homeless families whom councils will need to house in temporary accommodation will increase. Some 92% of councils fear that the freeze will cause a surge in homelessness, yet the Minister for Housing told me in an answer to a written question last month that the Government have not even carried out an impact assessment.
However, this is not about the numbers, as awful as they are. This is about the reality of life for hundreds of thousands of people in this country—one of the wealthiest in the world. The hostels in which people are being placed are not acceptable places for vulnerable women escaping abusive relationships or for parents to bring up their children. Clearly, there are real problems in the system when vulnerable people are being left in temporary  accommodation for many years. What steps will the Minister take to improve the system of assessing vulnerability and the needs of families placed in temporary accommodation? Over the years, I have heard horror stories of needles in stairwells, of young children sharing bathrooms with strangers and of vulnerable women being abused and exploited. Ultimately, the story comes back to the chronic problem of the decimation of our social housing.
Local authorities, stretched to breaking point after years of austerity and budget cuts, spent £845 million on temporary accommodation last year. The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, which has been at the centre of the Grenfell storm, has built just 10 new council-funded social homes since 1990. Only 1,102 social homes were built with Government money in England in 2016.
We have a serious, serious crisis. The Chartered Institute of Housing estimates that by 2020 nearly 250,000 social homes will have been lost in just eight years. We have to grip the issue of houses sold off under right to buy. It is criminal for the state to give people a subsidy to take even more houses off the market and to see the sorts of people we are talking about today in even direr circumstances as a result.

Mike Kane: My right hon. Friend is making an extraordinarily powerful speech. Manchester City Council is currently having to buy back ex-right to buy council houses to cope with the demand of homeless families presenting at Manchester town hall. Does he agree it is a disgrace that councils are being put in that position?

David Lammy: It is shocking and appalling that councils are being put in that position. Many councillors across the country are having to make the hardest of decisions on behalf of people—frankly, as Members of Parliament, we are all pleased that we do not have to make those decisions. We now have a ridiculous situation in which we are spending almost £10 billion a year of taxpayers’ money on housing benefit that goes straight to private landlords. Slashing social housing funding is a false economy. This is dead money. Instead of lining the pockets of private landlords, it should be used to build new social homes.

Siobhain McDonagh: I worked out last night that we could build 88,000 prefabs with the money we are giving in one year to the private rented sector in housing benefit.

David Lammy: Absolutely. We have to find new ways of building homes. We would be better off giving people a home for what may be 40 or 50 years by building those prefabs than handing out money in the way we have.
The state grant available for social landlords to build social homes was slashed to zero in the 2010 spending review. In its place we got new categories of homes: homes for affordable rent, and affordable homes for first-time buyers. It is important to place on the record that the crisis will not be solved by building affordable homes that cost £400,000 to £450,000 in London. It is time almost to banish the word “affordable” from the  lexicon, as it means nothing to ordinary people when it comes to housing policy. We have already heard that the Government are not building social homes, but they are spending 80% of the total housing budget on subsidising private homes through Help to Buy and discounted starter homes. The Government are not even really serious about their own affordable homes programme.
The dire situation we are seeing in temporary accommodation is symptomatic of the intrinsically linked shortage of homes and housing crisis. We will get to grips with the crisis only through a mass social housing building programme. The Government are beginning to recognise that, and I welcome the Prime Minister’s promise of a council house building “rebirth” in her speech last month.
The crisis will not be solved by further overheating the housing market by offering Help to Buy loans to first-time buyers, who have help from the bank of mum and dad anyway. The crisis will not be solved by building 5,000 homes each year. That is a drop in the ocean given the scale of the problem—it is only half of the households waiting to be housed in the London Borough of Haringey. Some 1.2 million households across the country are waiting to be housed, according to Shelter.
I hope the Government are listening and, on behalf of the 3,000 families in Haringey, I hope they will finally act.

Kevin Hollinrake: It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), and I congratulate the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) on securing this important debate. There is no question but that we have a problem in this area; no one can be comfortable with a situation where 78,000 people are in temporary accommodation. That is a 7% increase on the previous year’s number and a 63% increase on the 2010 figure. The number of people living in temporary bed and breakfast accommodation is 6,600; there has been a slight decline, of 4%, since the previous year. On the overall context of temporary accommodation, let me try to take some of the party political heat out of this by pointing out that the figure peaked in 2003 at 100,000. Therefore, we need to look at the issue in its overall context. However, that is not a justification or excuse for the fact that we need to move people out of temporary accommodation and into decent housing.
The Government are taking a deal of action on the issue. Obviously, we are allocating £550 million by 2020 to homelessness reduction. The first thing we have to do is reduce the number of people who are becoming homeless. The Government’s ambitious objectives to halve homelessness by 2022 and completely abolish it by 2027 are profound and must be welcomed. I also welcome the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) on the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017; I served on the Bill Committee. It is important legislation. We heard lots of anecdotes and saw lots of evidence about people who just were not well served when they presented themselves to local authorities in desperate need of advice to prevent them from becoming homeless or to be rehoused. The Act will have a profound effect in trying to help them. It includes new duties for local authorities and a new code of conduct.
I also welcome the Government’s actions on supported housing, which will have an effect in this area. There was concern about the new policies on supported housing, but the Government listened to the Joint Committee comprising the Communities and Local Government Committee and the Work and Pensions Committee on the issue. We looked at that and tried to form a policy that was going to work better nationally and locally. The Government listened and then put in place pretty much what we recommended in terms of looking at the different types of supported housing, including a new sheltered rent category, and ensuring that we have moneys allocated for short-term supported housing.
On wider solutions, I agree with a number of earlier contributors that the fundamental problem we have to solve is the number of houses we are building in this country. That drives all the affordability issues, which are driving many people into homelessness. So we need to build more homes. Clearly, we are building more than were built during the nadir of the housing market crash—it was difficult to build homes in 2008. New homes are being delivered at about twice the rate they were in 2008, which is good—[Interruption.] That is a fact. But we also need to build more affordable homes and more social homes. I agree with the right hon. Member for Tottenham: 80% of market value in many cases is simply not enough. So we must deliver more affordable homes. That works for many people.

Ruth Cadbury: How?

Kevin Hollinrake: The hon. Lady asks how, from a sedentary position, and I will address that point. The Government have announced an extra £2 billion, bringing the total contribution to £9 billion by 2020.
We must get to grips with the viability assessments. They are a way for developers to avoid their responsibilities to deliver affordable homes or social housing. Some 79% of the affordable homes that should have been delivered through section 106 contributions have been avoided through the use of viability assessments. It was right to bring in viability assessments in 2012, when sites were not viable, but now that that time has passed we should consider a completely new policy on contributions from developers and of course landowners—the money is supposed to come from the landowners—to pay for affordable homes and social homes to rent. I favour a simple system of tariffs, either per bedroom or per square foot, rather than the complex section 106 system, in which a local authority requires a certain percentage of affordable housing. I think such a system would work much better.

Ruth Cadbury: The hon. Gentleman is making an interesting point, but if the private sector was expected to meet the need for new truly affordable social rented homes alone, and was required by law to comply with tariffs to the extent that he suggests, is it not likely that the private sector, particularly in London, would just walk away from delivering homes at all?

Kevin Hollinrake: No, I do not accept that. There is already a requirement for the private sector to deliver on section 106 commitments. It needs to be fair, not only to the landowner but to the community. For me, too much of the planning gain is going to the landowner and not enough is going back to the community.  The viability assessments allow developers to have a race to the top in terms of land prices. I would happily have a longer debate about the matter with the hon. Lady, but I absolutely think that the existing system creates a loophole for developers. Of course it is not just the responsibility of the private sector, and of course the Government need to contribute, as they are, although they need to contribute more.
I have just remembered that I should have drawn the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I have some business interests in the housing market, but that does not affect my keen desire to see more social homes delivered.
Another idea we might consider with respect to delivering more social rented homes is to allow investors to put private rented sector property into a self-invested pension, which they cannot do currently. They can buy commercial property and rent it out, but they cannot do that with residential property. I have talked to the Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government about why we cannot allow private sector investors to put residential property into a pension, as long as they are willing to let it out at a social rent, or less than 50% of market rents. That is another way we could deliver the social rented homes we need.
Local authorities and housing associations are clearly part of the solution. We should allocate, or allow local authorities to borrow, more money to develop more affordable homes or homes for social rent.
On the issues in the private rented sector, I believe that most landlords are very responsible in delivering of decent-quality accommodation in the rented sector, and they will remain a key part of the delivery of decent temporary and permanent accommodation. Nevertheless, we should consider having a property rental standard. The draft Tenant Fees Bill, or other legislation, may give us the opportunity to tag in a property rental standard to ensure that all property in the private rented sector is of a decent quality and that we have decent enforcement, using redress schemes or other bodies.
I agree that we should consider longer tenancies. They should be voluntary for landlords, but there should be incentives. I wonder whether one such incentive could be to allow some dispensation around the section 24 mortgage interest provisions that have been introduced, because they have been received quite badly by many landlords. If landlords are willing to offer longer tenancies, perhaps there should be some dispensation around how we treat mortgage interest in the private rented sector.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden again on securing the debate. Like her, I am keen to see much higher-quality accommodation in the private rented sector and temporary accommodation.

Lyn Brown: I congratulate the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) on his speech and thank him for reminding me to bring Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) for her speech and for securing this important debate.
The situation in my home borough—Newham—is dire. The local authority reports that more than 5,600 people approached the council last year, worried about  homelessness. In total, 4,725 Newham households are in some kind of temporary accommodation, and more than half of those are currently in the least stable form of nightly paid accommodation. I hope that hon. Members across the House will agree that those statistics drive home the scale of the problem we are discussing. As we know, temporary housing conditions can massively damage families’ wellbeing and opportunities. To illustrate my point, I will talk about just one case out of the hundreds that I have received recently.
In August, I heard from Camila, a grandmother writing on behalf of her grandchildren and their mother, Lisa. Camila’s three grandaughters are 14, 11, and five. Lisa has had to live in temporary accommodation for 15 years. The children have known nothing else. The conditions in Lisa’s flat are awful and the situation is having a real impact on the family’s health. The walls are either black with mould or covered with mildew because of the damp. One of Lisa’s daughters has breathing problems and the whole family are frequently sick with infections.
Lisa and her daughters have had to move a number of times already, as we all have experience of in London. On one occasion, Lisa was moved out of Newham, and she was recently told that her family might be moved out of London entirely. Camila is really worried about Lisa’s mental health due to the stress caused by her family’s living conditions. Camila believes that having to move out of London and away from the support network of her family could push Lisa “over the edge” entirely, leaving the family in very difficult circumstances.
The problems of homelessness, debt, unstable homes and constant moves have an impact on children and families, preventing them from putting down basic roots—making friends, getting on doctors’ registers and even joining a library or a youth club. We are really storing up social problems for the future.
I often say that I was privileged to grow up in a council flat in east London. I was moved there at the age of two and a half, during the slum clearances around the docks. That flat provided me with the security to learn and to do as well as I could. My little—well, younger—sister is a well-respected solicitor. [Interruption.] She is actually both; that is true. And I am standing in this House. We could not have done that without the security of an affordable and secure tenancy—the security of a council property—behind us.
The social housing shortage requires urgent extensive long-term policy responses, but one decision is crucial and would help to continue to improve the housing conditions across the board in my constituency. The Secretary of State could today approve the renewal of Newham’s widely respected scheme for private sector licensing. The scheme has run utterly successfully since 2013, but its renewal now requires approval from the Department for Communities and Local Government and the decision is overdue. The current scheme expires on 31 December, so there is a real risk that my constituents will be left without these protections if a decision is not made quickly.

David Lammy: My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Those of us who grew up working-class and spent time in social council homes had security. What we  see so often in our constituencies is deep insecurity and the depression, mental health and other health problems that go with that insecurity. Does she agree that that is the difference between yesterday’s working classes and today’s?

Lyn Brown: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. Things were not easy at home, but my mum never let us feel that we went without. Both my parents worked in factories in Silvertown, and although there was not a huge amount of money, there was always enough to pay the rent, because it was a social rent. Now, my constituents have two jobs, and they work in very hard circumstances, but they still cannot afford the private sector rents—that is all that is available to them—in my home borough.
Let me get back to the scheme in Newham to protect residents. The scheme’s value in terms of the enforcement of housing standards is clear. It gives Newham the information and powers it needs to monitor and enforce standards in the private rented sector. All private landlords have to register and agree terms with the council, and they are held to account for failures to live up to the agreement.
Just last week, enforcement officers working as part of the scheme found a man living in a 1 metre by 2 metre space under the stairs of a property. There were 11 other people living throughout the rest of the house, and dangerous electrical and fire hazards were found as well. Through the scheme, Newham Council has helped to bring more than 1,200 prosecutions against criminal landlords, which is 60% of the London total—more than every other London borough combined.
If standards are continually driven up in the private rented sector locally, and if enforcement operations are strengthened so that there are fewer rogue landlords and there is less scope for exploitative practices such as the horrendous overcrowding I described, conditions will improve in temporary housing, and that can only be for the good of the children and our society at large.
I hope we will see some serious commitment from the Minister today to deal with the root causes of the ills of long-term, expensive, poor-quality temporary accommodation. Given that he has sat generously listening and nodding away as I have spoken, I also want to hear some positive noises from him about the scheme, and I hope he will soon be in a position to announce that approval for the extension has been granted.

Rachel Maclean: I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh). It is a great pleasure to follow her and other hon. Members in highlighting the importance of this critical issue. I understand the importance of temporary accommodation, which plays a vital role, because no child should be left without a roof over their head at a time of their lives when they face a crisis.
This is not a new problem. The number of children in temporary accommodation was at its peak in 2006, and it has come down somewhat since then. However, I absolutely accept that the Government should not be complacent and must do more to continue to bring the number down.
I have sought assurances from Redditch Borough Council, which has 21 units designated as temporary accommodation, that as few families as possible will be  sent outside the borough, and I commit to doing more to work with the council to ensure that those numbers are not excessive.
This issue has a number of root causes, which have been admirably tackled by other Members, and I will highlight just three today. The first is, of course, ending homelessness. The Government have shown their commitment to preventing and reducing homelessness, particularly through the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017, which was introduced and championed by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), and I thank him for his detailed description of the Act.

Kevin Hollinrake: That was not detailed.

Rachel Maclean: Well, he has done a fantastic job of championing this issue, and I welcome the work he has done, which all our constituents will benefit from.
The Government are committed to preventing and reducing homelessness, as well as to halving rough sleeping and eliminating it altogether by 2027. Clearly, that is challenging, but they have committed to making real progress by spending over £550 million between now and 2020 tackle this serious issue. That includes £11.7 million that I am assured has gone to local authorities to help them and that places duties on them to intervene earlier, so that they can be there when families most need their help, which is what we all want to see.
Of course, we need to fix the broken housing market. My goodness, how many times have we heard that in this place? Again, this is not a new issue. For 30 or 40 years, all Governments have not built enough houses. We heard absolutely fantastic stories from the hon. Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown) about her experience in a social home. That is definitely where we need to get to. We have heard the commitment to fixing the broken housing market—to diversifying the market—and we have seen progress there, with 333,000 affordable houses, including 240,000 for affordable rent, since 2010.
I accept what the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) said about the definition of “affordable”. That does need to be looked at, particularly in the Greater London area that many Members here represent. I welcome the fact that in my own constituency of Redditch homes are more affordable in general. In fact, the average age of a first-time buyer in Redditch is 25. There are massive differences across the country, and policy needs to reflect that.
Another reason for homelessness can be the ending of an assured shorthold tenancy. I have heard that there will be some announcements on that in the Budget, so I hope that the Government will bring forward plans to ensure that private landlords can offer longer tenancies where it suits the individual’s situation, as was highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake). More security of tenure would very much help families in that situation and help to reduce homelessness. There is no simple solution to this issue, as I hope that I have made clear.
Labour Members have raised the issue of universal credit, which was rolled out in my constituency last week. I visited the housing providers who provide the most homes in my patch, and I also visited the jobcentre. I asked people there what they are going to do to help prevent anyone being made homeless as a result of the  changes. They said that they welcome universal credit because it is helping people to get back into work, while for those families who are in work, it is helping them to take on more hours. Debt counsellors told me of the difficulties that families had had before when they could not take on more hours even if they wanted to. This system can work and it can support people out of poverty. In Redditch, there is a very proactive approach, so every claimant is being given the advance by default. I really hope that with this proactive approach families can benefit from universal credit, as we all agree is within the scope of the policy.

Mike Kane: The hon. Lady is making a considered speech, and I am listening very carefully. Did her social landlords not also say that there has been a huge increase in rent arrears because of the roll-out of universal credit in her patch?

Rachel Maclean: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I asked them that question directly, and the answer I got was that many tenants are already in arrears when they come on to the universal credit system. It is therefore important that social landlords work closely with those tenants to help them through the process to get them back earning so as to reduce those arrears. There is support. Neighbourhood workers who work with those tenants assure me that the risk of their becoming homeless is very low, if not negligible. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I will keep in close contact with those social landlords to ensure that that does not happen.
Again, I congratulate the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden and thank her for raising this important issue. I very much hope that the Minister, given the copious notes he is taking, will be able to reassure us that he is listening and that we can all work together to resolve some of the issues highlighted.

Mohammad Yasin: I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Redditch (Rachel Maclean). I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) and thank her for bringing this very important debate to the House.
The use of temporary accommodation is currently increasing and will continue to increase unless we tackle the root causes. Every day, 150 families in Britain become homeless, according to the housing charity Shelter. Overstretched and underfunded councils such as Bedford Borough Council are trying to deal with homelessness in the midst of a housing crisis. There is a lack of affordable housing, and private sector rents continue to rise above household income, fuelled by the freeze of housing benefit in the private rented sector.
It is becoming very difficult for councils to procure accommodation within an affordable financial framework, and we have the ridiculous situation of councils offering cash incentives to private landlords to persuade them to rent to low-income tenants to bridge the gap between low incomes and high market rents. Landlords’ refusal to rent to people on low incomes is a serious problem, and Government need to look into it urgently.
There has been a 229% increase in the use of temporary accommodation in Bedford borough. In 2016-17, a total of 7,219 nights were spent in emergency accommodation, compared with just under 2,400 in 2015-16. That represents  a 229% increase, and I really hope that the Minister is paying attention to that figure. The sharp increase in the number of low-income families in temporary accommodation is a disease created on this Government’s watch.
We are discussing the housing needs of the most vulnerable people in society. Families and vulnerable individuals are losing the roof over their heads and, in desperation, accepting accommodation many miles away from the communities in which they belong. Displacement, uncertainty and months spent in an unfamiliar B&B only add to the hardship of someone who is already in disadvantaged circumstances. According to Shelter, 118 children are living in temporary accommodation in Bedford alone. That is a very poor situation, and we need to look into it urgently. It is worth noting that nearly 1,400 families are on the council housing waiting list in Bedford. The only target that the Government are set to meet is to reach record levels of child poverty, which will rise to 5.2 million over the next five years, according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies.
How can we expect a child suddenly to move away from their school—perhaps their only stable environment —friends, family and support network and enrol in a new school in a new town, only to have to change once again a few months down the line? That causes great damage to their life chances, their mental health, their education and their ability to form secure relationships. A long-term solution must be found now. Temporary accommodation cannot become the permanent solution to this Government’s homelessness problem, and the Government need to look into the issue urgently. In Bedford borough, the situation is getting worse every minute.

Ruth Cadbury: I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) on securing the debate and on her description of the situation in Merton. Other colleagues, particularly those in outer London, have described the situation in their constituencies, and the examples that they gave do not differ too much from my constituency experience.
In the London Borough of Hounslow, which I represent jointly with my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra), there are 768 households in temporary accommodation and 3,500 households in housing need. The debate has focused on temporary housing for those who have been accepted as homeless and whom the local authority may have a duty to house. But let us remember that there are other people in temporary accommodation: those who are being housed by social services. The local authority has no duty to house those people, but there is concern about, and a duty of care towards, children in that situation.
I meet families being housed by social services in temporary accommodation who do not even have as much information confirming how long they will be there as those being housed by the homelessness team have. As other Members have so rightly said, with adequate, affordable social rented housing, those 768 families would be able to move fairly swiftly into permanent homes locally.
Since the Labour Government’s programme of 40,000 new starts of social rented homes was stopped in 2010 by the Conservative-led coalition, the housing need situation has reached crisis point. The lack of social rented housing coupled with rising rents in London, declining real wages and punitive income cuts for those on benefits—particularly with the local housing allowance cuts—has fuelled this crisis. The Government have left local authorities with the job of picking up the pieces by trying to find adequate temporary accommodation in which to place people while they are waiting to be assessed and then waiting for suitable permanent accommodation.
I want to pay tribute to frontline housing staff. They have to deal with this trauma and stress, and their own jobs are incredibly stressful. They did not go into housing management to be in such a position, but they are having to deal with this situation. It is just not fair on them, and neither of course is it fair on the families affected.
Local authorities are chasing an ever-declining stock of accommodation in which to place homeless families who are within the local housing allowance limits. Such accommodation needs to be fit for human habitation and the right size for the household in need.

Bambos Charalambous: Is my hon. Friend aware that there are 3,311 households in temporary accommodation in my borough, Enfield, which is the second highest figure in the country? One solution we have tried in Enfield is to set up a housing gateway organisation to buy stock, but that is only a temporary solution. Does she agree that the best solution is to build more council housing?

Ruth Cadbury: I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. I congratulate local authorities, including my own, that are trying to find solutions to the temporary accommodation crisis, but they really need the powers and the security to invest in proper, good-quality permanent housing.
I want to move on to the lack of local temporary accommodation. Boroughs such as Hounslow in west London, where rents are very high, find that they cannot square the circle between quality and rent levels. Demand is increasing and supply is drying up, even for private sector accommodation. Families are in temporary accommodation not for weeks or months, but for years. A couple of weeks ago at my surgery, I met a mother who has been in temporary accommodation for nine years, which is longer than many of us stay in our permanent home.
Too often, therefore, temporary accommodation is not local. I have met a family who are being housed in Birmingham. Another family moved about 20 miles away, but the wage earner, the father, is a restaurant worker and finishes work after public transport has stopped, so he cannot get back to his family at night. There is an impact on children in relation to changing schools. Should they not change schools and carry on with the two-hour journeys each way, or should they decide that their new temporary home may be permanent for some time and therefore change schools? Making such a decision is stressful for the children—it is difficult for their educational outcomes—and for their parents.
What about people, many of whom I have met in my surgery, with medical needs, those whose children have special educational needs or those whose already severe  mental health is getting worse with the stress? Should they shift their kids and their clinic or consultant when the local authority moves them to temporary accommodation a long way away, or should they fight their case with housing officers for some of the already too little local accommodation that is available locally?
There is an issue about what is local. If people seek help or advice from their MP, who is their MP: how long do they have to be in temporary accommodation before the MP of their last permanent home is no longer their MP and is no longer empowered to respond to their approach? I think we will have to take up this matter in the House, because it is confusing when we are trying to deal with casework or have casework referred to us involving someone from another authority.
Let me turn to the quality and suitability of temporary accommodation. I had a family expecting their fourth child living in one room in a bed and breakfast for months. I have had families living in homes that are damp, that are dangerous and where the repairs are inadequate. There are homes that are inaccessible for those with disabilities or that are unsuitable for children with special needs such as autism.
Temporary accommodation is becoming more unaffordable, as landlords in west London expect a higher return. The local housing allowance cap has fallen, so the local authority is left finding the difference between the rent and the amount that the Department for Work and Pensions is prepared to pay. It is not just non-working families who are suffering here, but working families as well. We should not be using taxpayers’ money to fund housing benefit to pay the high rents of temporary accommodation and to line the pockets of private landlords.
Local authorities are forced to take drastic action to reduce the demand for temporary accommodation, including tightening up the rules on the duty to house. In Hounslow, if a person is served with an eviction notice but leaves their home before the bailiffs arrive, they will be defined as intentionally homeless and therefore will not receive any help from the council in finding a place in a B&B or temporary accommodation as it will have discharged its duty to house. Too many families think that they are doing the right thing by planning ahead, but are then not helped by the local authority.
Hounslow has been reducing the use of temporary accommodation in the private sector by using council properties that are waiting to be repaired, but the funding should be available to make those homes adequate for permanent social-rent letting, rather than for temporary housing.
Temporary accommodation should be just that—temporary, a stopgap, and used for a short period. That was what temporary accommodation was when I was first a councillor and when need and supply of affordable accommodation balanced out. Temporary accommodation is not the solution to the housing crisis in this country. The solution lies in the delivery of adequate, truly affordable, social-rented housing. Instead of blaming the previous Labour Government for the problem, this Government should act now.

Wes Streeting: It is usually a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury), but I am afraid  to say that my speech paints a similarly bleak picture from the other side of London suburbia. I should declare at the outset that, until May next year, I am still an elected councillor in the London Borough of Redbridge, albeit unpaid, and a vice-president of the Local Government Association.
I want to begin by reflecting, as I prepare to leave the council, on the dire state in which local authorities find themselves as they try to wrestle with the scale of the housing crisis in London. Councils are providing temporary accommodation for more than 77,000 households, including more than 120,000 children, which is a net increase of 37% since the second quarter of 2014, and a 10% increase in numbers on the past year alone. Last Christmas, my borough, the London Borough of Redbridge, was looking to—and did—house more than 2,000 families in temporary accommodation, with more than 8,000 waiting on the housing register. I fear that the picture will be even bleaker this Christmas. as my casework is beginning to bulge even further with some pretty horrifying cases, to which I will refer in the short time available.
It is really hard to describe, except by telling individuals’ stories, just what this situation means in human terms for the people whom we are sent here to represent. One of my constituents used to live in a three-bedroom flat in Wanstead, in the west of the borough. She lost her home due to a fire in August 2016. She and her four children—aged 11, nine, six and 18 months—were rehoused in a two-bedroom flat. It was temporary accommodation but, as we have already heard from other examples, it was not at all temporary, as she is still there. She has GP letters about her stress and anxiety, which has been made worse by her housing situation. Her eldest daughter, who is just 11 years old, is also showing signs of stress and anxiety, and her school sent a letter expressing concern about the impact of the situation on her education. The response from the council is that it does not have anything bigger. My constituent does not feel that the council is listening or taking anything into account, but when I challenge the council’s housing officers, they say, “What can we do. Look at the pressures that we are under.” I do understand why my constituent feels that her situation is unreasonable and intolerable, but I also understand the dilemma that housing officers face, as the supply of accommodation simply is not there.
I was heartbroken when one of my constituents came to tell me about living in one tiny room, with very basic facilities, in a hostel with her 15-year-old daughter. Her daughter is preparing for her GCSEs, but she revises for her exams and does her homework under the duvet with a torch at night because she does not want to disturb the little sleep her mother gets in between looking after her daughter, managing to get to work to earn what little she can to try to make their lives better, and doing basic household chores, such as washing and laundry without basic laundry facilities.
One of my first cases was that of a victim of domestic violence who fled her home and was therefore deemed intentionally homeless. We in my office had to ask for the decision to be overturned, which it duly was. She was then placed in the Earl of Essex pub, an old pub on Romford Road, which gained notoriety in a BBC news segment that was a powerful piece on the housing crisis generally, and in Redbridge more specifically. The conditions are not suitable for her or her two children. They all sleep in the same room and their beds are next to each  other. Her son has been referred to child and adolescent mental health services, which had taken the trouble to redecorate his room in the previous home to try to give him a better environment in which to live. However, that was also temporary, insecure accommodation. He was moved on and he is now back to square one. The daughter is going through puberty, and is very uncomfortable about having to sleep in such close proximity to her mum and younger brother.
The housing case I found most troubling was that of the 11-year-old boy who approached me at the end of a lesson during a school visit to say that he wanted to speak to me privately. It is unusual for an 11-year-old to demand some of their MP’s time, and I spoke to him in the headteacher’s office. He said, “You grew up in a council flat, didn’t you? Can you help me, my mum and my two brothers because we live in one room in a hostel?” That was in my neighbouring constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes).
This breaks my heart because one of the things that motivated me to get involved in politics was an awareness that I did not have same opportunities when I was growing up as other people from wealthier backgrounds. A good education changed my life and meant that a Stepney council estate boy could become a Member of Parliament, having gone to one of the world’s best universities.
I have no doubt that the boy approached me because he thought that I would understand his position, but the truth is that I do not. Growing up in that council flat in the 1980s, I thought it was terrible, but I realise how lucky I was to live in a place where my mum had security of tenure, where we were not at risk of being evicted overnight, and where I could go to the same school with the same friends and have some stability, if not all the opportunities that money can buy. Kids growing up today in the same circumstances as me are in a worse position than I was in the 1980s. This country is going backwards, not forwards, and that is intolerable.
I have heard some pretty clichéd speeches in this place about how to afford to revamp the Palace of Westminster or Buckingham Palace. We can make a case for ensuring that we look after our national institutions and fabric, but people have a point when they ask why we can always find money for those projects, which are considered indispensable, but not for housing.
I make a final point to the Minister—this does not all rest on his shoulders. Almost every policy we heard at the Conservative party conference this year and in previous years was about tackling the demand side of the problem—helping people to buy their own home or helping with rent—but this is a supply crisis. About the only sensible thing the Secretary of State has said in recent months is that we need £50 billion to build the generation of homes that this country needs. I can support that, and it is a tragedy that the Chancellor will not.

Helen Hayes: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) on securing this  important debate and her powerful and moving speech. It is pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting).
My constituency covers part of the London borough of Lambeth and part of the London borough of Southwark. Both councils have among the most ambitious council house building programmes in the country. They are doing everything possible to deliver new, genuinely affordable homes, to prevent households from becoming homeless, and to source temporary accommodation within or very close to the borough, paying as much regard as possible to people’s support networks and where children go to school. However, they face an impossible task with the current policy and funding environment.
In 2015-16, Southwark Council placed about 3,400 households in temporary accommodation. In Lambeth there are currently about 1,500 households, including 5,000 children, in temporary accommodation. Southwark’s spend on temporary accommodation has gone up fivefold since 2011-12. Temporary accommodation is funded from a council’s general fund, and the increase in expenditure has come at exactly the same time as the Government have cut more than 50% of the direct support grant of both councils.
Across the country, more than 78,000 households, including 120,000 children, are living in temporary accommodation. The figure is up a shocking 60% since 2011 and continues to rise at 7% a year. Each one of those households is placed at greater risk of physical and mental ill health, and children in particular are more likely than their peers to have respiratory problems.
Across the country, expenditure is going up, and about £845 million was spent on temporary accommodation nationally in 2015-16. This increase in expenditure, both locally in the boroughs that cover my constituency and across the country, is not money well spent to deliver better outcomes, but money spent in a situation of last resort, delivering distress and instability for the households concerned.
Responsibility for that growth rests squarely at the door of the Government. According to the National Audit Office, Government policy is directly driving the increase in homelessness. It was the Government who imposed an arbitrary cap on the local housing allowance, which has caused an exponential increase in the number of people becoming homeless because they are unable to afford the cost of a rent increase that the LHA rate falls behind. The impact of the LHA cap could not be more stark than in Southwark, where the capped rate is just 38% of the average private sector rent. Average rent in the borough for a two-bedroom home is £694 a week, but the LHA is capped at £265. Soon, residents who are reliant on the LHA will be able to afford no private sector accommodation at all. The situation forces hundreds of households who would not previously have needed help with their housing to seek support from the council, because they find themselves facing homelessness. Temporary accommodation, much of which is both more expensive and of a much lower quality than general needs housing in the private rented sector, is often where such households are placed.
It is the Government who are refusing to listen to the overwhelming evidence that the six-week delay in receiving a universal credit payment is directly contributing to an increase in homelessness in the areas where that has  been piloted, including Southwark. It will certainly continue to do so as it is rolled out, unless the Government decide to take notice of the evidence and pause the roll-out so that the problems can be addressed. It is the Government who have presided over a 95% drop in the number of social homes to rent funded by central Government grant since 2010.
I was proud to have supported the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017, which emerged from the Communities and Local Government Committee’s inquiry on homelessness. The Act, which places an emphasis on providing support for people facing homelessness to prevent them from becoming homeless, comes into force next year. However, preventing homelessness is labour-intensive work and there are grave concerns that the funding that the Government have committed to the Act’s implementation will not come close to fully resourcing councils for its implementation. The Act was largely based on legislation already in place in Wales, but the scale of the challenge in England is completely different. Southwark, for example, made more homelessness application decisions last year than were made in the whole of Wales over the same period. The Act must be properly resourced if it is to be effective. If it is not, the Government will have missed an enormous opportunity to take meaningful action to prevent homelessness.
I want to say a word about the personal consequences of living in temporary accommodation for my constituents. Every week in my surgeries, I see families who are at their wits’ end, living in accommodation that is overcrowded, damp and sometimes shared with strangers. Their experiences are among the most harrowing and distressing I hear. I think of my constituent who lives in a single room with her two-year-old daughter, sharing kitchen and bathroom facilities with other residents she does not know, some of whom cause disturbance and smoke cannabis on the landing outside her room. I think of the woman who, while she was pregnant, was placed in a studio flat with no running water, where she remained after the birth of her child, with the only alternatives available at the time for a mother and new-born baby being a mixed-sex hostel, or accommodation a long way from her family and support network. I also think of the couple who live with their three children, two of whom have sickle cell disease, in accommodation that is damp, cold and mouldy—conditions that precipitate frequent sickle cell crises and make it impossible to manage this painful condition effectively.
The conditions in which these constituents are forced to live are distressing enough, but these people also suffer the profound psychological consequences of living in insecurity without a permanent home, being unable to put down roots, and often travelling a long way to maintain employment and supportive relationships, particularly with their children’s school. The Government are perpetuating the problem, most notably due to the LHA cap and universal credit. The public sector funds that are being spent on poor temporary accommodation could be used instead to sustain private tenancies and prevent people from becoming homeless in the first place. This would deliver much better outcomes.
In his Budget statement, the Chancellor has an opportunity, a month before Christmas, to stem the increase in the number of families living in temporary accommodation and to take meaningful action to address homelessness. The Government must lift the cap on LHA, because doing so would have an instant impact  on the ability of hundreds of households to sustain their private sector tenancy. They must commit to the full implementation of the Homelessness Reduction Act, with funding at the level that councils require. They must also make funding available to councils and housing associations to address the supply shortfall in the short term.
The increase in the number of families living in temporary accommodation is to the Government’s shame. They must take meaningful action to reduce the distress and damage that their failed housing policies are causing.

Angela Crawley: I thank the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) for bringing forward this debate and for her heartfelt and passionate contribution. None of us could fail to be moved by her call for change for the families here today and the many more affected by the scourge of homelessness and temporary accommodation. I also recognise the contributions of the hon. Members for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), for Ilford North (Wes Streeting) and for West Ham (Lyn Brown), who rightly and proudly spoke of her working-class background and about growing up in a council house. No one in the House should be ashamed to talk about where they came from. We must make sure that young men, such as those the hon. Member for Ilford North spoke about, see that there are people in this place who represent them and that they understand where we came from, too.
The right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) spoke at great length about the right to buy, which we abolished in Scotland. It is absolutely necessary that the Government replace the lost social housing and define exactly what they think constitutes an affordable home. What exactly is an affordable home? I would like to know. The hon. Member for Redditch (Rachel Maclean) spoke at length about the roll-out of universal credit, which was rolled out in her constituency only last week.

Drew Hendry: The roll-out of universal credit started with a pilot in Inverness in 2013, and ever since we have been reporting to the DWP the problems it is causing for people. These problems are leading to people being evicted from their homes and adding to the homelessness numbers. Does my hon. Friend agree that this is a ridiculous situation, and a stressful one to put people through, and that it is contributing much greater distress than is necessary?

Angela Crawley: Absolutely. I thank my hon. Friend for his comments and echo his sentiments. My constituency in south Lanarkshire witnessed the roll-out of universal credit some years ago. Scotland is not unused to the idea of a Government and this particular governing party trialling their catastrophic programmes in Scotland. The hon. Member for Redditch kindly informed us that it happened to her constituency last week. I ask the Minister to come to my constituency or to the highlands and the islands and see how the roll-out of universal credit really works, because it is really not working.
I am sure that everyone in the House will agree that our approach to homelessness and temporary accommodation is pivotal to predicting which vulnerable families will be  impacted. It is clear how harrowing and stressful the situation can be for many of the people who come to our constituency surgeries. Having grown up myself in a damp council house, although not temporary housing, I am here to represent my neighbours and friends who continue to live in those houses and conditions.
It is refreshing to hear people talk unashamedly about their backgrounds. Not everyone in this place has the same level of privilege, and it is important to remember that in this House we are all equal.
Homelessness is most often a result of complex and difficult circumstances. It can arise from a need to escape abuse in the home, job loss or financial insecurity, but it can also result from holes in the social security system that allow people to fall through what should be a safety net. That is a result of things beyond the control of most of our constituents.
When people threatened with homelessness approach us in their time of need, they are in an extremely vulnerable position. They are scared and stressed, with insecurities in their lives that, I suspect, reach far beyond any that many Conservative Members could possibly imagine. I may be generalising, but the point is that to leave people with nowhere to go is downright immoral. [Interruption.] I hear chuntering from Conservative Members. I hope that they have constituents who can enlighten them, and I hope that the Minister will explain to his constituents why he has not yet resolved an issue for which he has ministerial responsibility.
The Government have recognised the position. Although housing policy is a devolved matter in Scotland, all four nations of the United Kingdom have legislated to introduce a legal duty to secure accommodation for at least some of the people who are rendered homeless. Scottish local authorities have a statutory duty to find permanent accommodation for all applicants who are unintentionally homeless, or who face the threat of homelessness. As a former councillor, I know how difficult and challenging that task is, and I appreciate the work done by housing officers in South Lanarkshire, throughout Scotland and throughout the United Kingdom. They work hard, each and every day, to ensure that no one is left without a roof over their head that night. When people have nowhere to sleep, housing officers will make arrangements for them not to have to sleep on the street.
Every time someone comes through the door of a council office or surgery to visit the local councillor, I am reminded of the story of a mother and her two children who had been sleeping on a friend’s sofa after escaping from an abusive relationship. I witnessed the housing officer go above and beyond what was required to ensure that she would have somewhere safe to sleep that night, but there is no doubt in my mind about the conditions in which she was forced to stay. No matter how great it was for her to have a roof over her head, it was temporary accommodation. It was damp, it was ill-equipped, and it was not fit to house two vulnerable young children. That is the reality that many families face throughout the country.
Some experience homelessness as a result of drug and alcohol abuse. Others experience it as a result of depression, and veterans may be suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder after returning from active duty. I do not want to generalise about people who find  themselves without a home in which to sleep tonight, but the fact is that it is not enough for housing officers to make temporary accommodation available. They need to be able to offer the support that is necessary, and to act as counsellors. They need to be able to give advice to people in crisis, and to listen daily to truly harrowing stories. They need to be able to help people to get back on their feet. That means that they need support as well: they need funding, and the Government must recognise that they have a role in ensuring that it is provided. We must ensure that our council officers and services are appropriately funded, and that the key communication that should take place between local authorities is indeed taking place.
As I have said, and as many other Members have pointed out, housing is a devolved matter in Scotland. While the Scottish Government have gone to great lengths to ensure that those who find themselves homeless are protected, many are not afforded those protections, for a variety of reasons. I realise that that is a challenge, no matter how hard Governments may try. For all the failures and losses of this Government, which I may stand on this side of the House and criticise, I recognise that tackling homelessness is a challenge for any Government, and I do not wish to stand here and throw stones at glass houses. I hope that that will count in my favour; I have asked the Minister some questions, and I hope that he will recognise that I want to work with the Government.
Will the Minister acknowledge the impact of universal credit? Will he acknowledge that the delays of between six and 12 weeks, of which I have personal experience through the pilot in my constituency, are not acceptable? Will he acknowledge that the Government must do more to tackle homelessness throughout the UK, and will he come to my constituency to witness the impact of universal credit at first hand? What action will the Government take to prevent people from having to sleep in the cold tonight, and to ensure that a family does not have to sleep on someone else’s sofa? What commitment will they make to tackle the inherent problems of homelessness and temporary accommodation? Will they provide the necessary funds and support to ensure that those who deliver valuable services are able to do so?
Ultimately, I am saying to every Member, “Check your privilege, and do not forget why you came here in the first place.” There is a reason for our being here. We have an opportunity to change the present position. I want to work with the Government. Let us do more to tackle homelessness.

John Healey: This powerful and moving debate is testament to the importance of the introduction of the Backbench Business Committee and its debates. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) on securing this debate. She told me previously that there were 44 Members from both sides of the House behind her bid for it, and she has led it very effectively. However, this important debate has been so badly squeezed for time this afternoon.
My hon. Friend gave a speech that those of us who know her well have come to see as characteristic: it was passionate, practical and laced with the personal  commitment and care she gives to her constituents. At one point, she said she was worried she might not find the right words to convey the anguish of some of her constituents; she did, however, and in doing so she did her constituents proud and this House a real service. In a country as decent and well off as ours, it should shame us all that 120,000 children this Christmas will have no home and will spend Christmas day in bed and breakfast-style accommodation, hostels and in some cases private rented accommodation that is not fit for human habitation, as we have heard this afternoon.
This has been a very important debate. As a number of contributions have underlined, temporary accommodation is too often not temporary but can last up to a decade and more. It is too often substandard and sometimes downright dangerous, and is too often not available in people’s own areas.
Some of the solutions have been set out for the House today. The hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) argued for tougher planning obligations. My right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) and my hon. Friends the Members for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) and for Enfield, Southgate (Bambos Charalambous) recommended building more new social rented homes and council homes. My hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown) said we should back private landlord licensing. The hon. Member for Redditch (Rachel Maclean) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mohammad Yasin) argued that we should end out-of-area temporary housing. The hon. Member for Lanark and Hamilton East (Angela Crawley) said we should replace all right-to-buy sales with new council and social rented homes, and the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) called for longer tenancies and an end to six-month assured shorthold tenancies.
Homelessness is both highly visible, with the rapidly increasing number of people we see sleeping rough on our streets, but also hidden, and the homelessness crisis is essentially a hidden crisis today. The figures for temporary accommodation, which are in the motion before us today, are just the tip of the iceberg. Our councils across the country are, irrespective of political party leadership, doing their best, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting) said about his own in Redbridge. As well as the 60,000 families accepted as statutorily homeless in the last year by our councils, together they helped prevent homelessness and helped house 215,000 more families. But they are doing their best at the same time as the numbers and the pressures are rising, and the options available for housing for councils are reducing. That is why the number of people accepted as statutorily homeless has risen by nearly 50% since 2010, and it is why we are seeing the number of rough-sleeping homeless more than double; it has gone up by 50% in the last two years alone.
The Homelessness Reduction Act 2017, promoted by the hon. Member for Harrow East and on which my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) led for Labour in Committee, is a good step. It had all-party support, including from our Front Bench, but it comes to something when the one stand-out piece of housing legislation and policy from a Conservative Government in the last seven years has come from the Back Benches, not the Front Bench.
I pay tribute to the Minister, however. I am well aware of how hard he worked with colleagues behind the scenes, first to get backing for the Bill and then to get some financial resources behind it. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood has said, there is very much more to be done. She was also right to say that the Homelessness Reduction Act was modelled on the Housing (Wales) Act 2014. That legislation was introduced four years ago this month by Carl Sargeant. Today, the House will want to pay its deepest sympathy to Carl’s family, his wife and his close friends. He was a passionate politician who put community at the heart of all his politics, and his Act was the first ever piece of housing legislation to be passed in Wales. Today we mark his legacy, because every month hundreds of families in Wales are helped to avoid the trauma of homelessness because of what he did.
The reason why the Homelessness Reduction Act offers some remedies but no solutions is that it does not deal with the root causes of rapidly rising homelessness. Many of those causes are now being driven by the decisions taken by this Government over the past seven years. They include: the big cut in investment in new affordable homes; the ending of all Government investment behind new social rented homes; crude cuts to housing benefit; the introduction of the roll-out of universal credit, unreformed; the reduction in funding for homelessness services; and the lack of action to protect private renters. I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden that Connect House probably exists only because of the changes in the planning regime that our Government brought in to prevent councils from being able to withhold permission for that kind of development.
We know what works because we have done it before. The Minister is sometimes guilty, when responding to questions about rapidly rising homelessness, of saying, “Oh well, it was higher under Labour.” And he is right. When we came into power in 1997, the level of statutory homelessness was already over 100,000 and rising. It peaked in 2003, but the critical question is the action that we took then. After that, the independent Joseph Rowntree Trust and the Crisis homelessness monitor described what happened as an unprecedented decline in statutory homelessness, and the level of rough sleeping homelessness went down by more than 75%. So it can be done. We know what works, so let us do it.
This Government have no majority in the House and no real mandate in the country, and they have no domestic policy programme because that is not covered by the deal with the Democratic Unionist party. In the spirit of a Backbench Business Committee debate, let me offer some actions that the Government could take to start to get to the bottom of the issue and deal with the homelessness crisis that we are facing.
The Government could overhaul how we measure rough sleeping so that we know how many people are sleeping rough on the streets; transform capacity and get people off the streets for good by making 4,000 homes available now for people with a history of rough sleeping; halt their plans to change how supported housing is funded, which could still lead to the closure of homelessness hostels; protect the housing cost element of universal credit; and, above all, build the tens of thousands of new affordable homes, homes for social rent and council homes that are needed to fix the housing crisis. They could also increase the security for private renters, make  three-year tenancies the norm, and cap and control the rise in rents. In that way, we will start to tackle the homelessness crisis.

Bob Blackman: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

John Healey: I was just winding up, but I will if the hon. Gentleman presses me.

Bob Blackman: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way and also for his support for the Homelessness Reduction Act. While I am on my feet, Madam Deputy Speaker, may I draw Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests? I inadvertently forgot to do that when I made my speech.
Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us what the Labour Party’s policy is on the local housing allowance? The hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood has drawn our attention to that issue, but so far in the right hon. Gentleman’s speech he has been silent on the matter. I think the whole House would be quite keen to hear the Opposition’s view on what should happen on the LHA.

John Healey: That is a disappointing intervention to take right at the end of this speech at the end of this debate, but I will send the hon. Gentleman the Labour housing manifesto. We have committed to ending the bedroom tax; the Conservatives brought it in. We will restore housing benefit support for 18 to 21-year-olds; they cut it. We will review the whole housing benefit system, including the local housing allowance and the lack of link with rising rents, which they brought in.
Problems in the system are directly driving the rapid rise in homelessness and the need for the temporary accommodation that this debate has been about. I hope that this debate will give the Government a lead. Accepting that there are problems and agreeing with the concerns is not enough; action is needed now. Let us hear from the Government that that is what they will take.

Marcus Jones: I congratulate the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) on securing this debate on such an important subject. The provision of good temporary accommodation is a vital part of getting people the help they need and ensuring that a family are never without a roof over their head. The number of households in temporary accommodation remains well below the peak levels experienced in September 2004, but this Government are certainly not complacent. In order to ensure that families are moved into settled accommodation more quickly, and spend less time in temporary accommodation, we took a major step and changed the law in 2011, so that councils can now place families in decent and affordable private rented homes.
The quality of temporary accommodation is, of course, extremely important. The quality and standard of all temporary accommodation is ensured through a legal duty placed on local authorities, which must undertake an assessment of suitability before placing anyone into  accommodation. Affordability, size, condition, accessibility and, importantly, location should be taken into account. The assessment includes the possible disruption to jobs and children’s schooling, points that were made during the debate.
I will respond to as many of the hon. Lady’s questions as possible. To pick up on her first point, we should take health and safety extremely seriously. All homes should be of a reasonable standard, and tenants should have a safe place to live regardless of tenure. Local authorities have strong powers to deal with poor-quality and unsafe accommodation. The housing health and safety rating system assesses the health and safety risks in all residential properties. If a property is found to contain serious hazards, the local authority has a duty to take the most appropriate action, and we would expect local authorities to use those powers. It important that safety levels are always met and that we ensure that homes are of a decent standard.
We are also embarking on an ambitious programme to reform the response to homelessness, which will place prevention right at the heart of the approach. So far, that has included replacing the DWP’s temporary accommodation management fee with a flexible homelessness support grant, which enables local authorities to more strategically prevent homelessness. Taking action earlier and getting on the front foot in order to help to prevent homelessness will result in fewer households having to face the stress and upheaval of a homelessness crisis, and we expect it to relieve pressure on temporary accommodation. The funding will drive change in local areas, and my ambition is to see local authorities, voluntary sector organisations, health services and the wider public sector work in partnership to deliver services that support people’s needs. Overall, we have allocated £950 million until 2020 to reduce homelessness and rough sleeping, as well as supporting the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017, which was introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman).
The Act is the most ambitious legislative reform in decades, and it will fundamentally transform the culture of homelessness service delivery. Local authorities, public bodies and the third sector will work together actively to prevent homelessness for all those at risk, irrespective of priority need, intentional homelessness or local connection. The Act will require local authorities to work with those in need to develop personalised housing plans, which will be tailored to focus on the needs and circumstances of the individual. That can include actions by other support services that are best suited to support the individual.
Alongside the Act, we are making positive changes in the way we gather statutory homelessness data, as the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) rightly said. The additional data we gather will enable us to get a better insight into the causes of homelessness and the support that people need. The data will also enable us to monitor the help people have received from their local authority and whether it helped to prevent them from becoming homeless. The data will also provide us with more detail on the temporary accommodation provided to those in need, including on its size, location and quality.
To support the delivery of the Act, we are widely consulting on the revised statutory homelessness code of guidance for local authorities. We will also be providing  £72.7 million of funding, in line with the new burdens doctrine. We want to see fewer individuals and families face homelessness, we are committed to ending rough sleeping, and we want to reduce homelessness overall. We are therefore setting up a homelessness reduction taskforce, which will focus on prevention and the important issue of affordable housing.
I will now address some of the other points raised by the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden. On the Homelessness Reduction Act, the Department for Communities and Local Government has employed a team of advisers. She rightly mentioned how we will hold local areas to account. It is not just about holding areas to account but about supporting them to ensure that the right systems and working practices are in place. The team of advisers will go out to support local authorities on implementing the Act.
It is extremely important that we get to a place where the code of guidance reflects some of the challenges that the hon. Lady mentioned. It is also important—my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East is a strong advocate for this—that the Act makes provision for the Government to introduce a code of practice if it is deemed necessary because local authorities are not taking on their responsibilities under the code of guidance.
I heard what the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden had to say about some of the temporary accommodation in her constituency. I was not aware of the meeting she is holding in Committee Room 9 this evening, and unfortunately I cannot make it, but I take her comments very seriously indeed. I would be extremely grateful if she were willing to meet me in the Department to discuss her concerns in more detail.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East mentioned bed and breakfasts, the usage of which has started to reduce in the past few quarters. That is good news but, again, we are not complacent. Importantly, certain local authorities, such as Barnet, Haringey and Tower Hamlets, are now not using bed and breakfast accommodation at all. We need to learn from places where good practice is happening, and my Department’s team of advisers will focus on spreading that best practice across the country.
The affordable housing supply has also been mentioned. It is an extremely important part of this. The Government have delivered 240,000 affordable homes for rent since 2010, but we want to build on that and bring forward another 225,000 affordable home starts by 2020. On the recent announcements, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has been clear that we want to bring forward houses for social rent, particularly in areas with extreme affordability challenges.
My hon. Friends the Members for Harrow East and for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) mentioned another important issue: the ending of an assured shorthold tenancy, which is a common cause of people becoming homeless. To answer the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East, let me say that my Department is absolutely committed to looking at how we can incentivise landlords to provide longer tenancies. I hope that we will be coming forward with details on that soon. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne shakes his head, but incentivising landlords is the right thing to do, rather than introducing things such as rent controls, which, as has been widely acknowledged across the sector, will reduce supply rather than increase it.
I certainly hear what the hon. Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown) said about the Newham private sector licensing scheme—she made an impassioned plea to the Department on that. I am not directly making the decision, but I will make sure that the information she has put into this debate is fed back to the Minister for Housing and Planning.

Lyn Brown: I am genuinely grateful to the Minister for listening and for that assurance. If the Department is not going to make a positive decision very soon, I would be very grateful for a meeting to discuss that with the Minister responsible, if there is anything that this Minister can do to enable that to happen.

Marcus Jones: I will certainly do what I can on that. I expect that a decision should not be too far away on the issue the hon. Lady mentions. She also mentioned rogue landlords. We have to be clear that they form a small part of the private rented sector, but wherever they exist we must work to drive them out of the system. That is why in the Housing and Planning Act 2016 we introduced further measures, such as the power to levy civil penalties of up to £30,000 on a rogue landlord, with the money then going back to the local authority to invest in respect of further enforcement powers. We have also introduced banning orders, so rogue landlords can be banned from renting property to people or from being a property agent.
The hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) mentioned the situation in Southwark. I was delighted to go there several weeks ago to visit its housing options team, who are an early adopter of the Homelessness Reduction Act. I was struck by the progress being made in Southwark and the positivity of the team there. They seem to be doing a fantastic job and have embraced the principles of the new legislation. It was obvious that they were helping more people earlier to stay in their home, and I was extremely pleased with what I saw during that visit.

Helen Hayes: The Minister is right to commend the excellent work that Southwark Council is doing as a trailblazer to implement the 2017 Act early. I hope that officers and members at Southwark also shared with him their grave concern that the Government’s commitment to funding for that Act extends for only two years and that without a commitment to fund at the extent that is needed all that good work will quickly be lost.

Marcus Jones: As the hon. Lady knows, we have invested £72 million in funding for the 2017 Act. The Act is coming into force in April, but we are putting a significant amount of that funding into councils earlier, so that they can gear up for the new Act. She will know, from being heavily involved in the Bill Committee and through the process of the legislation—I commend her for that—that the Government have committed to reviewing the new burdens funding that is being provided within two years of the Act’s implementation.
Time is moving on, so if I may, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will mention a point that the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne made about that Act. I assure him that we were looking carefully at the legislation that was introduced in Wales, but while we were considering it, an excellent opportunity arose when my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East came forward and the Government embraced his proposals.
It would be remiss of me not to offer on behalf of the Government my condolences following the death of Carl Sargeant, the Welsh Assembly Member who has regrettably passed away. I want to put on record that the work he did on homelessness reduction in Wales has made a significant difference to the lives of people there, and the House should remember that.
The right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne mentioned Labour’s action in 2003. When we look at what happened at that time, we should not forget that a lot of people were moved from their own areas during that period. A lot of people were moved out to places such as seaside resorts, where there was often little by way of job prospects or opportunities for people to make decent lives for themselves. In some of those areas, there are still social challenges caused by the decisions made at that time. The Government are committed to tackling homelessness, but also to an approach in which we try to do the best thing by people. Several Members mentioned people being moved out of areas; people should not be moved out of their area by compulsion. There should be a discussion between the local authority and the individual, based on the individual’s circumstances at the time.
The right hon. Gentleman also mentioned the rough sleeping data, which we have improved since 2010. I should point out to him that in 2010 councils were not even compelled to provide rough sleeper data to the Department. They are now, but we want to go further and to obtain more data, because we know that if we do, we will be able to work out exactly what the challenges are and why people become homeless, and we will be far more effective at dealing with it. He also mentioned rent controls, which I certainly do not think are a way to help the situation, as I said earlier. They would compound the situation and make it worse.
I thank the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden again for allowing me to set out the Government’s position on this extremely important issue. There is still a considerable amount of work to do. The Government are making progress, but we now need to accelerate it, and I think we will, particularly through the Homelessness Reduction Act, the additional funding that we have provided to local authorities, and the homelessness reduction taskforce that the Government are going to convene shortly.

Siobhain McDonagh: I thank all Members from all parties for being involved in this important debate, and I thank the Minister for agreeing to meet me to discuss Connect House—I am grateful.
I do not wish to sound angry or petulant, but I feel both, because 84 families will still be living in the middle of an industrial estate tonight, tomorrow night, next year and the year after. The most common eviction is now eviction from an assured shorthold tenancy. No amount of advice at any point in the cycle is going to change that, because landlords can get more money if they rent their properties to people who are not dependent on housing benefit or universal credit. That is a financial fact. We can wish it better, but that is not going to work. The only thing that is going to work is a proper requirement for standards in temporary accommodation that are fearlessly enforced by the Government. God help us: we require councils to tell other councils when they move a homeless family to their area. That would be revolutionary.
I worked in housing for 35 years. I found accommodation for homeless families and dealt with people in bed and breakfasts in the 1980s. I have never ever seen such numbers and the sort of accommodation that people are currently living in. We can get real about it and do something real, or risk a crisis among poor, dispossessed families of the like that we will have difficulty dealing with. I ask people to get real about the situation that many of our constituents find themselves in.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House notes with concern the increased use by local authorities of temporary accommodation for 77,240 homeless families in priority need, including 120,540 children or expected children; further notes more than a quarter of those households have been placed in temporary accommodation in a different local government area; further notes the draft consultation on a homelessness code of guidance for local authorities; is aware of the pressure on local authorities and the increasing demands that they face; and calls on the Government to provide a framework for monitoring and enforcement to ensure the appropriate level of quality and location of temporary accommodation, to require that local authorities appoint a designated officer for homeless families in their area and to ensure that homeless families have appropriate contact with health, education and social services when they are in temporary accommodation.

Autumn Adjournment

Bob Blackman: I beg to move,
That this House has considered matters to be raised before the forthcoming adjournment.
I start by giving the apologies of the hon. Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns), who was intending to lead this debate. As the business has been rather squeezed, he has had to get back to his constituency to attend an urgent function tonight, so I will lead this debate on behalf of the Backbench Business Committee. I will first touch on some local issues that affect my constituency and constituents before discussing some rather more parliamentary and international issues that urgently need to be raised before the House goes into recess.
The first issue—I have raised this matter a number occasions in such debates—is the lack of step-free access at Stanmore station and Canons Park station. Both stations are on the Jubilee line and are in my constituency. There is no way of getting to the normal roadway from the station platforms, except via steep staircases or alternatively, at Stanmore station, through an almost inaccessible car park route. There may be good news on the horizon: the Department for Transport is conducting a consultation about disabled access at stations, although, as everyone will be aware, Jubilee line trains are matters for the Mayor of London. I am assured by the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard) that, given the failure of successive Mayors of London to remedy the situation, he is prepared to intervene if enough residents from my constituency respond to the consultation asking him to do so.
Work continues after my Adjournment debate on the scandal of the sale of the public asset of the Hive stadium to Barnet football club. There has been a succession of freedom of information requests to Harrow Council to itemise exactly how the scandal arose and to Camden Council to see how it is getting on with claiming the money back that it should have received as a result of the sale of the public asset at a vastly reduced rate.
I turn to police funding and activity in Harrow. There are concerns about the police station closures that the Mayor of London is intent on introducing. These closures will have a dramatic effect on the level of policing and the police presence in Harrow and many other boroughs right across London. It is quite clear that the Government have to stump up more money for the Metropolitan police’s counter-terrorism duties. They have to review the policing budget, so that the next year’s budget includes a three-year settlement for police funding at a requisite level, given that London is the capital city. I would like the Mayor of London to spend some of the £2.3 billion of unallocated reserves on policing, where the people of London want to see it actually spent.
I am working on two proposed free schools in my constituency. The Mariposa Primary School has been resisted like billy-o by the local authority but has the support of parents and many other people who want to see it brought into operation. The Department for Education and the Education Funding Agency have supported the proposal, but there is opposition from Harrow Council.
I am also supporting the Hujjat free school, which would be the first state-sponsored primary school for Muslim children in the borough of Harrow, and it is definitely well needed. I have been working with the sponsors for some time, and I am hopeful that we will have a site for it and that the school will be blessed with council and Department for Education approval in the immediate future.

Wes Streeting: Perhaps I could use this opportunity to place on record the concerns I have about schools in my constituency, particularly John Bramston Primary School and Ilford County High School, which are both in desperate need of refurbishment. Like the hon. Gentleman, I also want to see a free school application succeed—in this case, from the trust running Avanti Court Hindu Primary School, which wants to develop a secondary school. There is pressure across London, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way so that I could put those parochial wishes from my neck of the woods on the record.

Bob Blackman: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, and he gives me the opportunity to make it clear that the first state-sponsored Hindu primary school and, indeed, the first state-sponsored Hindu secondary school are in my constituency. I wish him well with that application.
There are two other local issues I want to raise, and they follow on from the debate we have just had. There has been a dramatic increase in the number of unauthorised houses in multiple occupation in my borough. That is becoming a running sore, and it requires stringent Government action, and it requires local authorities to carry out their duties.
Equally, we still have the problem of casual labourers touting for work on Honeypot Lane outside B&Q and Selco. One solution I have suggested is that, as police station closures are going ahead and there would be no police presence on the ground in my constituency, the police could site an operation in B&Q or Selco. They could use their equipment there, and they could come and go, which would disperse the labourers at one fell swoop.
Let me mention two or three things in Parliament before I sit down and allow colleagues to have their chance. First, I was pleased, on behalf of the all-party parliamentary group for British Hindus, to hold a very well-attended Diwali celebration on the Terrace. A number of right hon. and hon. Members were present, and there was huge representation from across the Hindu community. The celebrations have been going on for some time; the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) led them originally, and he bequeathed it to me to continue their wonderful progress. When we celebrate people’s religions, it is particularly pertinent.
May I draw hon. Members’ attention to the fact that, last week, we beat the other place at bridge? Our team delivered a stunning blow for the House of Commons, and I was pleased to captain it. This year—finally—I managed to get a second actual Member of Parliament to join me on the team. They were from the SNP, which shows that we are truly becoming an all-party group. I invite Members from the other parties to come and join us so that, next time, we rub home our advantage against the Lords.
I was pleased to welcome Elmira Akhundova MP, who has just launched her triple-volumed biography of Heydar Aliyev, the former President of Azerbaijan. I would recommend this multitudinous-paged biography as a right riveting good read for anyone who wishes to read it. It does, of course, raise an issue that remains unresolved—the plight of the internally displaced persons who continue to suffer as a result of the illegal occupation of Nagorno-Karabakh and the surrounding regions in the dispute with Armenia.
I sponsored early-day motion 483 on the role of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps in human rights abuses in Iran. One of the things that continues to blight relations between the UK and Iran is that despite the attempts we are making to normalise those relations, human rights abuses continue in that country.
We have debated the plight of the Rohingya Muslims, but Rohingya Hindus have also fled in fear of their lives and are now in Bangladesh. The Government of Bangladesh have decided to introduce a voluntary sterilisation programme for the Rohingyas in their camps because of the exploding birth rate. This has been widely reported in the press in the UK and on the Indian subcontinent. I think that there is a sinister position on this, because what starts as something voluntary can very rapidly become compulsory. People who literally flee in fear of their lives may go down this route because they fear that they will not get help or assistance. I hope that the Foreign and Commonwealth will actively take up this issue.
We are celebrating the centenary of the Balfour declaration because of a historic decision by the British Government that I warmly applaud. The relationships between the United Kingdom and Israel grow ever stronger. This week Prime Minister Netanyahu visited this country—something that is very well worth celebrating. We also had the centenary celebration by the Board of Deputies of British Jews in Speaker’s House. I and many other right hon. and hon. Members attended that function, which was graced by speeches by those from all political parties, demonstrating the support that there is from Members right across the House. When we are trying to combat the rise of anti-Semitism in this country, it is vital that Members on both sides of the House and from all parties speak out about that scourge.

Wes Streeting: The hon. Gentleman is being very generous in allowing me to put a number of things on the record. I was not able to make it to the well-attended debate in Westminster Hall on the Balfour declaration, but I strongly support what he says. I was delighted to attend the Board of Deputies’ reception in Speaker’s House as co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on British Jews. This country can be proud of the role that it has played in the creation of the state of Israel. We must now, along with the Israelis, the Palestinians and many others, turn our face firmly to the future and make sure that the future for Israel is a two-state solution that ensures a secure and viable Palestinian state alongside a secure state of Israel.

Bob Blackman: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I trust that he will lean on his party leadership to make sure that they echo his views, because occasionally they do not appear to do so.
I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, the other Deputy Speakers and Mr Speaker. I thank the brilliant staff of the House of Commons for the service we have had, and wish them a good short break. I wish my staff who work in my parliamentary office an opportunity to get on with work while I will not be here.
Lakshmi Kaul used to work in my office and has now gone off to work for the Confederation of Indian Industry: I wish her all the best in her new endeavours. I congratulate her on raising more than £14,000 towards the Nainika Tikoo Memorial Foundation and being nominated for a Just Giving award. For those colleagues who do not know, her daughter tragically died of an allergy, and she has spent a lot of time since raising awareness of this dreadful problem that confronts parents and children alike. It is a tribute to her that she has got on with doing that, so that other parents do not have to go through what she has had to go through.

Chris Stephens: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman). I thank him, the hon. Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns) and all members of the Backbench Business Committee for ensuring that matters that are important to Back Benchers are regularly debated in this House. I will be touching on such matters in my contribution.
Tomorrow, it will be five months since the general election. I have tried to continue to be a left-wing, anti-austerity Member of Parliament, and to serve the constituents of Glasgow South West to the best of my ability. Being a Member of Parliament is an honour and a privilege. It is a job in which we should highlight our constituents’ concerns and celebrate constituency successes, such as those set out in several early-day motions. Early-day motion 349 congratulates all involved with the Govan stones, which continue to win archaeological awards and are one of the six hidden gems in Scotland. The Govan stones are a unique collection of early medieval stones found in the Govan old church. Hon. Members are more than welcome in Govan, and I hope that they will all take the opportunity to see those stones.
The work of the Coming Home Centre is celebrated in early-day motion 499. The centre assists military veterans, providing practical advice, furniture and food, and it gives a daily hot meal to the hundreds of veterans in Glasgow who require assistance to adjust back into civilian life. The 50th anniversary of the opening of the Bellahouston sports centre is commemorated in early-day motion 459, and the awarding of the Glasgow Saltire award to young volunteers from St. Angela’s Participation Centre in Darnley is mentioned in early-day motion 411.
One seasoned parliamentarian put it to me that this debate is nicknamed the “moanfest”.

Michael Ellis: indicated dissent.

Chris Stephens: The Deputy Leader of the House shakes his head in disbelief. On the basis of that nickname, I wish to raise a number of issues, the first of which concerns the process for parliamentary questions. One of the frustrations of the job of being a Member of Parliament is that we regularly receive answers from  Ministers that end with the catch-all phrase “disproportionate cost”. That often happens when information requested in a parliamentary question has already been provided under freedom of information procedures. In such cases, it is quite confusing to receive responses from Ministers stating that information can be provided only at disproportionate cost. I fear that if I were to table a parliamentary question to the Deputy Leader of the House asking how many parliamentary answers end with the phrase “disproportionate cost”, the response might very well be that that information can be provided only at disproportionate cost.
I also want to raise the question of the cost of telephone calls to Departments, which the Deputy Leader of the House will have heard me raise many times at business questions. As a member of the Select Committee on Work and Pensions, I was delighted to hear the Secretary of State say that telephone calls to his Department will be free by the end of the year. The Deputy Leader of the House will be aware that I have raised that issue for more than two years. However, that does not affect other Departments, including the Home Office, which runs the spousal visa hotline. Will the Government explain how my constituent Amera Hussain, who has telephoned that hotline twice in the past month, has received a phone bill outlining that the total cost of those two telephone calls was £28.77? The Home Office says that the spousal visa hotline charges £1.37 a minute, over and above network charges, but it has also said in response to a parliamentary question I tabled that that should apply only to non-UK residents. I hope that the Deputy Leader of the House will ask the Home Office why UK residents are being charged such premium, astronomical rates to telephone a Department.
I want to raise a general point about enforcement, because there has started to be a real focus on that since the election in June. I will cite some of the figures revealed by the Government in answer to parliamentary questions. At present, 399 staff members are working in the national minimum wage compliance unit, yet it has 83 vacancies, and the Government have intimated that they have no plans to fill them. Is it any wonder that there are 200,000 workers in the United Kingdom who are not being paid the national minimum wage when there are so many vacancies in the Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs compliance unit?
I asked Ministers yesterday to confirm whether there were 420 HMRC staff in the high net worth unit, which deals with tax avoidance and evasion. Last year, it was revealed that there were 420 staff in that unit, with 700 in the affluent unit. I have been told by the Government today that those two sections of HMRC have been combined, so I was expecting to hear that there were 1,120 staff working in the merged unit. However, I have been told that there are only 1,040 staff, so it seems to me that there has been a reduction in the number of HMRC staff dealing with tax avoidance and evasion. In addition to that, given the office closures, in 2017 alone HMRC will lose 17,000 years of staff experience, which will surely lead to a decrease in enforcement.
Such a reduction does not, of course, apply to chasing social security fraud. As I said in the House yesterday, the latest figures show that 3,605 employees in the Department for Work and Pensions are chasing social security fraud. I have been told today in a written answer that the figure for full-time equivalents is actually 4,045.  If 4,045 employees can chase social security fraud estimated at £1.2 billion, just imagine how much money HMRC could bring in if it had 4,045 employees chasing tax avoidance and evasion.
We need to ensure the House is always pursuing how to help the most vulnerable in our society. Today’s Trussell Trust report exposes the real situation in our communities where universal credit has been rolled out, with food bank use up by 30% in those areas. I am clear that food banks are not and do not wish to be part of the social security system. In my constituency of Glasgow South West alone, there has been a 56% increase in food bank use in the past year. That is why my constituency office will now be a collection point for those who wish to make cash or food donations to my constituents.
Real poverty is on the rise and wages are low. As the Member for the constituency with the largest percentage of public sector workers, I hope that the Government will give such workers a real wage rise shortly. The job of all of us is to hold the Government to account, and I hope that they will, in the weeks and months ahead, address the many challenges that our people face.

Mark Pawsey: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens), who has demonstrated both his effective use of early-day motions and raised some constituency issues, although he did say he would not use the debate as a moanfest.
I am not going to use this debate as a moanfest, but as a celebration. I want to use it to recognise the very powerful and important contributions made by three exceptional sets of constituents in my constituency, whom I have met over the past few years in my role as Rugby’s MP. The common factor among them is that they have all faced massive adversity in their lives, but have turned it into something positive for others. I hope to be able to give a brief account of their achievements.
The first, and the one I met most recently, is a gentleman called Andy Martin. He has always considered himself an active and healthy person, but about five years ago he was diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease. He has always been a keen rugby player—we josh each other about the fact that I used to be an Old Laurentian, while he used to play for Newbold rugby club—and he continues to play for AEI and Coventry Welsh. Once he was diagnosed, he decided that he wanted to do something to show that a diagnosis of Parkinson’s disease was not a barrier to going out and achieving great things. He asked himself what he might do to raise the profile of the disease. He said that he could have curled up in a corner and hidden, but he chose instead to fight and to do something absolutely extraordinary. He told me that he had heard about Ian Botham walking from John O’Groats to Land’s End, and became determined to do that himself. He did, on his own, throughout the month of September 2017.
The journey entailed walking, on average, 35 miles a day, booking himself into a hotel or guest house, getting up early in the morning, and cracking on and walking another 35 miles. On occasion, because of the gaps between guest houses, he covered distances of between 40 and 45 miles. He achieved his goal in just 30 days. He needed a police escort as he went over Dartmoor because it was pouring with rain. He also had to travel on  A roads entirely on his own, but he achieved his objective. It was a huge endeavour and an absolutely major achievement. He has shown that, despite suffering from Parkinson’s, he can still get on with his life and achieve a great deal. He has already raised £4,000 for Parkinson’s through a JustGiving page. He is planning to go one better next year and walk from his home town of Rugby to Amsterdam. I take my hat off to him. His achievement is magnificent, and something of which I am exceptionally proud.
Another constituent who came to see me very shortly after I became an MP was Peter Realf, who, with his daughter Maria Lester, has devoted his time to raising awareness of brain tumours. Peter himself endured his own battle with leukaemia from 2002 to 2012, but his condition has stabilised. I first met Peter in 2007 when he came to see me with his son, Stephen, who, at 19, had been diagnosed with a brain tumour while training to qualify as an RAF pilot. Very, very sadly, Stephen passed away in 2014 aged just 26.
In August 2015, Stephen’s sister, Maria Lester, started a parliamentary petition to commemorate the anniversary of her brother’s death and to promote awareness of brain tumours. On 9 January 2016, the petition secured 100,000 signatures, which meant that it could be considered for a debate in Parliament. The debate took place in Westminster Hall where in excess of 30 Members took part; the Chamber was as full as I have ever seen it. That led to a parliamentary inquiry, which was attended by Peter, Maria and Peter’s wife Liz. As a consequence, there is now a much greater awareness of brain tumours. The shortage of funds, particularly in respect of young people, was also highlighted. A parliamentary task and finish group was established. The final report of the House of Commons Petitions Committee found that
“successive Governments have failed brain tumour patients and their families for decades.”
Peter has now become very involved with the all-party group on brain tumours here in Parliament, and there is a real move towards positive change.
We know that brain tumours are the biggest cancer killer of children and adults under 40; fewer than 20% of those diagnosed with a brain tumour survive beyond five years, compared with an average of 50% across all cancers. Thanks to the work that Peter and his family have done, Cancer Research UK has recently announced a new multi-million-pound investment in brain tumour research at the University of Wolverhampton and Queen Elizabeth Hospital in Birmingham. That has been labelled a “game-changer” by Sue Farrington Smith, who is the chief executive of Brain Tumour Research.
It is extraordinary how Peter, having suffered a huge loss—the loss of his son—has been motivated to put his time and effort into improving awareness of this disease so that others may benefit. I take my hat off to him. He has done a tremendous job.
I also want to draw attention to my constituents George and Giulietta Galli-Atkinson. I first met them in April 2012, when they came to tell me that they had moved from London to Rugby and I was now their MP. They asked me to get involved in their campaign to improve road safety and develop a series of awards in memory of their daughter, who was tragically killed in 1998 when a car mounted the pavement as she was  walking to a ballet lesson. They founded the Livia awards, which began in 1999 and are being given this evening in the Attlee Suite in the company of the Metropolitan Police Commissioner. The hard work of Metropolitan police officers in investigating road traffic accidents is being recognised there.
George and Giulietta Galli-Atkinson did not just initiate the awards, but fought tirelessly for more appropriate punishment of those found guilty of causing death by dangerous driving. On both fronts, they have been incredibly successful. I was invited to join the judging panel of those who had been put forward for awards, and I read and heard accounts of police officers who had to attend the most harrowing incidents. It was interesting for me, as a provincial MP, to understand some of the challenges of policing in a capital as large and sophisticated as London. Often the people who have to pick up the pieces and bring families together are police officers, and we heard a great deal from family liaison officers. It gave me a window into a world that I would not otherwise have seen.
The Galli-Atkinsons have campaigned to make the penalties for causing death by driving more severe, and they have succeeded. There has been a long overdue change in the law as a consequence of their campaigning. They were assisted by the former MP for Enfield, Southgate—where they lived—David Burrowes.
George and Giulietta continue to campaign on road safety, and they have set up the Safe Drive Stay Alive initiative, which works with young people to make them aware of the dangers on the roads. It celebrates its 12th year this year. Although it runs predominantly in London, it is working its way through the country more widely, and I am delighted that it will come to Warwickshire next year. Again, they are two people whom I have met in my role as an MP, but perhaps would not have got to know in another walk of life. I have been incredibly moved by the amount of effort they put into raising standards in memory of their daughter. They turned great adversity into something for others.
I have mentioned three sets of constituents, whom I am immensely proud to have as my constituents. I am immensely proud that they are all in Rugby and making an impact on different sectors. They put their loss and grief to one side and their energy into making improvements for others. I am pleased to have had the opportunity this evening to recognise the work of Andy, Peter and Maria, and George and Giulietta. I hope that they all continue with their very good work.

Fiona Bruce: I will spend a few minutes responding to yesterday’s Adjournment debate on the 50th anniversary of the Abortion Act 1967. It was a short Adjournment debate, and only the ministerial response was possible.
Criticism was made of a grant from the money raised by the tampon tax to the charity, Life. Since it was founded in 1970, Life has helped to house more than 12,000 vulnerable mothers and babies and provided help and non-directive counselling to tens of thousands more. Life was described in the debate as an anti-choice organisation. Far from being anti-choice, Life seeks to give women a genuine choice about whether to keep their baby and to offer them much-needed support if  they choose to do so. The grant of £250,000 awarded to Life over three years was described in yesterday’s debate as:
“the largest sum from the tampon tax fund”.—[Official Report, 6 November 2017; Vol. 630, c. 1307.]
That, too, is incorrect. It was, in fact, only about the 10th largest. But that sum, so stridently objected to by some in the Chamber yesterday, is dwarfed by the amount paid to abortion providers. The sums are staggering. Over the past decade, hundreds of millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money have been paid to private sector abortionists. The Times reported that the head of Marie Stopes International, to which we pay millions of pounds to carry out abortions in the UK and overseas, received a phenomenal £420,000 in one recent year alone—four times the Prime Minister’s salary. Twenty-two of its employees were paid more than £100,000 each. What kind of charity is it that pays its staff these sums out of public money? Surely the Charity Commission should be investigating this.
On the 50th anniversary of the Abortion Act 1967, may I express my concern at reports resulting from Care Quality Commission’s investigations into the abortion practices of Marie Stopes International, which is described by some as an industry? Last year, the CQC’s inspection report identified a wide range of concerns about the way in which abortions are carried out by MSI, including criticism after finding dead, unborn babies in open bins. Again, what steps are Ministers taking to address these concerns? This is not just about me as one individual expressing concern, but the Government’s own regulator doing so.
We should also be concerned about another abortion provider and charity, the British Pregnancy Advisory Service, which describes itself as a not-for-profit charity but appears to be involved in lobbying to change abortion law, despite statements made by the previous Government that
“taxpayers won’t be made to foot the bill for political campaigning and political lobbying.”
My right hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Matt Hancock), who was then Minister for the Cabinet Office, said in February 2016:
“Taxpayers’ money”—
must not be—
“wasted on the farce of government lobbying government.”
Yet I recently received a letter from BPAS, which included the following:
“I am writing today to ask that you consider defending and extending reproductive rights in the UK during the course of this Parliament...all Parliamentarians—regardless of their personal view on abortion—should support decriminalisation of abortion in the UK.”
The letter, dated 10 July 2017, asks me—I presume it was sent to all MPs—to support a campaign. I am placing a copy of it in the Library. I understand that Ann Furedi, chief executive officer of abortion provider BPAS, is on record as saying, at the London launch of the “We Trust Women” campaign, the stated aim of which is decriminalisation of abortion:
“I want to be very, very clear and blunt...there should be no legal upper limit”.
The campaign’s website states that it campaigns to see the 24-week abortion time limit “removed from criminal  law.” What steps are being taken, both by the Government and the Charity Commission, to address lobbying of this nature by a government-funded organisation?
In yesterday’s debate, mention was made of Professor Lesley Regan from the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, who I understand supports decriminalisation and persuaded its council—but not the membership—to back decriminalisation in a ballot. I understand Professor Regan has argued that the practice of abortion should be no more restricted by the law than the practice of having a bunion removed. If so, I find this incomprehensible. In her response to the debate last night, the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price), reflected this when she said:
“I am sure that everyone in this House agrees that no woman undertakes a termination lightly. For many, it is extremely traumatic”.—[Official Report, 6 November 2017; Vol. 630, c. 1306.]
I agree. That is why there are protections within the current law, such as the requirement for two doctors to certify approval, and that, apart from in exceptional circumstances, late-stage abortions after 24 weeks should not take place. And the public appreciates this. I know that polling figures can be questioned, but it is interesting to note that very recent polling from ComRes shows that a massive 72% of people believe that, far from lifting the practice of abortion outside the current legal parameters in place today, such as the requirement of legal consent from two doctors, these parameters should remain in place.
That this message is not a fluke is underlined by an unlikely source: recent, extensive BBC-commissioned polling by ICM that clearly showed respondents supporting two doctors continuing to approve an abortion. It showed a clear rejection on the grounds of abortion due to disability and far lower support for abortion under other circumstances than may have been expected, and certainly would be expected if one listened only to the campaigning of those who are pushing for decriminalisation. As these polls indicate, that is not what the British public want. A ComRes poll from May shows that 70% of people want the 24-week time limit lowered—not surprisingly bearing in mind medical advancements in foetal viability over the last 50 years—and that 91 % want a specific ban on the practice of abortion on the grounds of a child’s sex.
It is important that we remember here that those who campaign for decriminalisation and the sweeping away of the safeguards that that would entail never mention that a modern and humane abortion law should consider and uphold the dignity and rights not only of the woman but of the unborn child.

Karin Smyth: Given the gravity of the headlines and the news in recent days surrounding abuse and moral questions such as tax avoidance, I would like to take this opportunity to highlight the fact that the House recognises that these are serious matters and that changes are needed to ensure due process, but we also need to remind ourselves that, for our constituents, it is the day-to-day business of politics that has huge impacts on people’s lives and that it is our job to make laws, scrutinise the Government and in effect make sure that business continues to be done.
We must also keep sight of our priorities. In my constituency, in one of the wealthiest cities in the country, we have some of the worst pockets of deprivation in the country, with more than a quarter of children living in poverty, and some of the lowest higher education attainment rates of any constituency in the UK. We are now also faced with some of the biggest challenges to have faced British politics in a very long time: the uncertainty posed by the Government’s handling of Brexit, huge cuts to local government spending, the longest decline in real wages since records began, rising poverty and massive inequality. We have people unable to leave acute and specialist hospitals because of the lack of social care provision, which is leaving providers unable to continue and families in silent misery as they try to support their loved ones.
We as MPs of all constituencies will face daily questions on housing. This afternoon, we have had an excellent Backbench Business debate secured by my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh), which contained some horrific examples of what is happening in our constituencies. Members have brought to us concerns about interest rate rises, the economic future of employers and the security of decent work that allows people to live in dignity and support themselves and their families. These are the daily challenges that people are facing, and it is for us to focus on them. That is indeed what colleagues have been doing over recent weeks and in today’s debate.
I pay tribute to the work of the Backbench Business Committee and its Chair in providing the House with a stream of interesting and valuable subjects for debate, particularly in the absence of Government business in the last few weeks. We, the Opposition, are resolute in attending the Chamber to do our job, and we will continue to press the Government for responses to urgent questions, for statements and on Opposition days—we are particularly enjoying winning every week on Opposition-day motions. We will continue to use every method at our disposal in parliamentary terms to ensure that this chaotic and crumbling Government are held to account for as long as they continue to last.
The Prime Minister started the Brexit debate by expressing a desire to have no running commentary and to avoid debate in this place. Opposition Members have made it clear that as we take back control it will be taken back to this place and not to some back corridor between Downing Street and Whitehall, with a couple of trusted Ministers and an army of civil servants, and my colleagues made that clear again by raising issues and questioning Ministers throughout today’s business.
The House will be in recess for just three days. I shall not be taking a holiday, although I want to express my gratitude to the Secretary of State for International Development, who has managed to make all future family holiday planning a great deal easier for me. Like many other Members, I look forward to catching up on constituency visits. I shall be visiting the Hartcliffe Health and Environment Action Group, meeting NHS leaders to discuss the sustainability and transformation plan, and visiting local schools.
The annual remembrance service in Bristol on Sunday, like others throughout the country, will again allow people to pause, reflect and remember the sacrifice of  those who have given their lives so that we can engage in democratic debate and scrutiny in the House; and, as we leave this place for the next three days, we will also remember those who are currently serving to keep us safe.

Michael Ellis: This is, I think, my fifth opportunity as Deputy Leader of the House to close such an Adjournment debate. It is, in many instances, a pleasant opportunity to achieve cross-party consensus. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), who is a member of the Backbench Business Committee and who is present now, for what he and the Committee do and for organising the debate. We do not normally have such a debate before this very short recess, so this is, if you like, Mr Speaker, a bonus edition.
My hon. Friend spoke about—among many things—step-free access on the Jubilee line. I note that a consultation is taking place about that. My hon. Friend said that the Mayor of London would be listening to the responses, and I hope that that is true. The Mayor clearly has substantial reserves at his disposal—more than £2 billion.
My hon. Friend’s support for all sections of his community is recognised nationally and certainly in all quarters of the Chamber. He is rightly acknowledged and popular inside and outside his constituency as a result of the work that he does—and not just because he plays bridge better than those in the other place, although I noticed that he could not resist mentioning that. He is popular because of the hard work that he does for everyone in his community and in the national community.
My hon. Friend spoke about the centenary of the Balfour declaration and acknowledged the strong relationship between our countries today. He also referred to the celebrations in your House, Mr Speaker. He was right to mention the frightening rise in anti-Semitism: no doubt every Member will want to fight that scourge.
The hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens) began by saying that he did not want to embark on a “moanfest”, and he certainly did not do that. He spoke of Glasgow with pride, and rightly so. He invited everyone to come to see the Govan stones, and I should indeed like to do so, because he made them sound very attractive. He also mentioned other activities in his constituency, such as the Glasgow Saltire Awards. He talked about the friendly people of Glasgow and said that it was always worth a visit; I certainly acknowledge that. He is an effective Member who has campaigned doughtily on matters such as the cost of hotlines, about which he has spoken effectively many times in the Chamber.
The hon. Gentleman also referred to the work of Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. Let me take this opportunity to praise those at HMRC who do so much work to recover the sums that are due to the Treasury purse. The Government have increased its resources substantially since 2010, and rightly so, because vast sums now come into the Treasury from that quarter. We want to make sure that all that tax, which is rightly due to the Treasury to fund our valuable public services, does come in. It is right that HMRC is properly funded for that purpose, so we want to continue with the work we have done since 2010 in that regard. I think that the hon. Gentleman will find that the sums coming in have,  so far as tax evasion and avoidance are concerned, dramatically increased since 2010, because of the extra resources put into that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mark Pawsey) spoke very eloquently, and with pride, about several residents in his constituency. Their hard work and service to their community and the wider community is to be applauded, and I want to mention them again. He mentioned Andy Martin, who has worked as a campaigner on Parkinson’s disease and walked from Land’s End to John o’Groats in some 30 days, which is a substantial achievement, and has no doubt helped raise awareness, not least in this place, of Parkinson’s disease, which, sadly, afflicts too many people in our society.
My hon. Friend also mentioned Peter Realf and Maria Lester and their campaign on brain tumours. Sadly, that also afflicts far too many people of all ages in our country. They lost their son and brother Stephen at the age of just 26. It is crucial that we take these opportunities to promote awareness of these tragic situations and conditions. They raised 100,000 signatures for a petition for a very effective recent debate in Westminster Hall.
My hon. Friend also mentioned George and Giulietta Galli-Atkinson and their work on road safety following the tragic death of their young daughter in 1998 when walking to a ballet class. The Livia awards are being held this evening in the Palace of Westminster; they offer the opportunity to thank our police service, particularly police officers involved in road traffic duties for the extraordinary work they do in investigating road traffic accidents, including fatal ones. Officers are awarded for exemplary duty and service when, as detectives, they have either investigated the cause of an accident or many accidents throughout a career. We should take this opportunity to thank all those officers for their service, and the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis is coming to Parliament this evening to do just that. I am sure Members on both sides of the House will want to thank the police for their service, particularly, with these awards this evening, in the road traffic field. My hon. Friend is very proud of all his constituents, and so are we all.
My hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) raised a matter close to her heart. Members know how passionate and committed she is to her constituents. She holds issues dear to her heart and has spoken on many of them before. She has also on previous occasions spoken passionately and eloquently about making sure children have the best start in life, which I know we all would support; we can all agree with that. I commend her on her hard work for her constituents in all these fields and in family life.
The shadow Deputy Leader of the House, the hon. Member for Bristol South (Karin Smyth), to whom it is a pleasure to be an opposite number, mentioned some of the issues about which her party has concerns. I would gently point out that the economy of this nation is some 15.3% larger than it was seven years ago, that the deficit we inherited has been cut by some two thirds since 2010 and that we collected £55 billion in corporation tax just last year, which helps to pay for our treasured public services, including billions more for the national health service, which we all value and treasure so dearly. I point out that employment is up by some 3 million since 2010 and that the unemployment rate has not  been lower since 1975. Income tax has also been cut for more than 30 million people, and there are some 950,000 fewer workless households. So there is a lot that is positive to refer to at this juncture, before the start of our very short Adjournment.
I want to take this opportunity—through you, Mr Speaker, if I may—to thank the wonderful, hard-working staff of this House. I want to thank you, Mr Speaker—not just because you are here in the Chair but because of the work you do—and your deputies. I want to thank the Clerks, the Doorkeepers and all the staff of this place. They work all year round to enable us to function in the Palace of Westminster as a Parliament and as a legislature in the effective way that I think we do. We thank everyone for that. I would like to give a special mention to the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, Lieutenant General David Leakey, who is retiring after more than five years’ service in the other place. I worked with him on the occasion of Her Majesty the Queen’s diamond jubilee, and I know that he will be missed in the other place.
On the subject of those to be thanked and perhaps congratulated, later this month is the 69th birthday of His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales. I know that his long and dedicated service, his philanthropy and his exemplary work ethic will be an example to us all, and I should like to take this early opportunity to wish him a happy birthday. Also later this month will be the 70th wedding anniversary of Her Majesty the Queen and His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh. Although it is still a few days away, I would like to be one of the first to express my congratulations from the Dispatch Box and to wish them many more happy years together.
Perhaps I should close by remarking that this coming weekend is Remembrance Sunday. Members on both sides of the House will no doubt take that opportunity to commemorate the fallen in wars and conflicts that took place a long time ago and far more recently and the loss of life of so many over the generations that has affected so many families around the country. We shall have the opportunity to commemorate their service to this country and to the causes that this country and all the parties in this House hold dear: freedom, democracy and the rule of law. Those are the important matters in our lives, as we recognise on Remembrance Sunday those who have gone before us and who have given their all to serve their country.

John Bercow: I thank the Deputy Leader of the House for what he has just said and for the gracious way in which he has said it.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered matters to be raised before the forthcoming Adjournment.

PETITION - KINGSWAY GOLF COURSE, SCUNTHORPE

Nicholas Dakin: It is a great pleasure to present this petition on the behalf of local people who are concerned about the future of Kingsway  golf course. It is surprising that I am presenting this petition here before they have had the opportunity to present it to the Conservative council. I particularly thank Neil Herrick for co-ordinating the petition so well that it has received over 1,500 signatures.
The petition states:
The petition of residents of Scunthorpe County,
Declares that Kingsway Golf Course in Scunthorpe has been open since 1971 providing local people with an opportunity to take up golf; further that thousands of local people have used the course; and further declares a wish to retain a golf course on the site for the use of local people.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to reach out to North Lincolnshire Council and encourage the Council to engage with local campaigners to reach a compromise to retain a Golf Course on the Kingsway site.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P002074]

PETITION - SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY

Ranil Jayawardena: It gives me no pleasure to have to present this petition, which is of local residents against changes to the South Western Railway service, particularly from Hook and Winchfield—two much-loved and well-used stations. Services should be protected at all our stations.
The petition states:
The Humble Petition of people of North East Hampshire,
Sheweth that urgent action must be taken concerning the South Western Railway and the change of their timetable coming into force in December 2018; further that this line is particular highly valued, especially the Fleet, Hook and Winchfield stations; further that if any morning peak-period services are removed this will be detrimental to commuters and is clearly not in the best interests of our community; and further that these proposals need not and must not be implemented, as demonstrated by their ability to provide good Hook and Winchfield services during evening peak-period.
Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House urges HM Government to take all possible steps to urge South Western Railway to reconsider the decision to make their proposed changes to the train timetable due to come into force in December 2018 and to make sure that the train timetable considers the economic, social and familial implications to commuters across North East Hampshire.
And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, &c.
[P002075]

PETITION - USERS OF THE NO. 67 BUS SERVICE IN TORBAY

Sarah Wollaston: I rise to present a petition on the behalf of my constituents, who are deeply concerned about the withdrawal of the No. 67 bus service, which allowed them to travel from Brixham to Torbay Hospital and The Willows. I would like to thank Madge Forrester, who has collected over 1,200 signatures, demonstrating the strength of feeling about the value of this service.
The petition states:
The petition of users of the No.67 bus service in Torbay,
Declares that the cancellation of the number 67 bus service between Brixham, Marldon, Torbay Hospital and the Willows will have a detrimental impact on local residents, in particular, elderly residents.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges Torbay Council to commit to providing a similar service to the previous No.67 service for sake of the local residents as soon as possible.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P002076]

Pete Wishart: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. You have been very clear about the outcome of last Wednesday’s vote and about what is expected from the Government in light of the overwhelming result. The Government have been mandated on a binding vote of this House to deliver analysis papers to the Exiting the European Union Committee, as directed in the motion. As the motion clearly intends, they have to do so without qualification, redaction or equivocation. There is also an expectation that the Government comply with the will of the House as a matter of urgency.
Today, in response to the urgent question, the Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker), indicated that no such commitment will be made. The House was told by the Minister that we may expect the publication of papers within three weeks, which appeared to be an intention, not a binding promise or guarantee. He also suggested that the publication of the papers could be partial and qualified. He even went as far as to suggest that they did not even exist.
Mr Speaker, you have said that a failure to comply fully would mean that the Government could be in contempt of this House. I have now written to you regarding a privilege complaint that this Government have held the House in contempt by refusing to fully comply with a binding vote of this House. It is of course entirely within your gift how you choose to reply to this letter and indicate whether you are prepared to see any progress. “Erskine May,” on page 273, says that you may allow precedence so that a motion may be tabled
“formally calling attention to the matter, and either proposing that it be referred to the Committee on Standards and Privileges or making some other appropriate proposition.”
Mr Speaker, I am sure you are aware of the significance of such a process, and I would be grateful to you for any response or guidance on this matter.

John Bercow: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order and for his courtesy in giving me advance notice of his intention to raise it. He is quite right in his assessment that the correct way in which to proceed with an allegation of contempt is in writing to the Speaker.
The hon. Gentleman has just informed the House that he has written to me, and he will understand that I have not yet seen his letter. I can, however, assure him that I will study his letter most carefully. I am sure he will also appreciate that I will not and cannot be expected to entertain, and to be fair he has not really asked me to entertain, hypothetical scenarios on what might follow. I will consider his letter carefully and, when I have formed a view about it and any allegation that it contains, I will revert, in all probability, not only to him but, as necessary, to the House.
Given what I have said, I think it reasonable for people to deduce that there cannot be further legitimate points of order on this matter today.

Tax Avoidance and Evasion (Isle of Man)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Nigel Adams.)

Margaret Hodge: Thank you for selecting this issue for debate, Mr Speaker. I thank the Minister and my hon. Friends for being in the Chamber tonight.
The past few years have seen a mountain of leaked documents: the Panama papers; the Falciani papers; the Luxembourg leaks; and those about the so-called Russian laundromat. Less than three weeks ago, I secured an Adjournment debate based on leaked documents about Azerbaijan and the money laundering activities of its ruling elite.
All those important leaks involved substantial disclosures that exposed money laundering, aggressive tax avoidance and possible tax evasion. They revealed how the proceeds of organised crime have been used, and how powerful global corporations and the super-rich use nefarious, unethical and sometimes criminal financial wheezes to hide their money and avoid their taxes.
Then, on Sunday night, we started to hear about further outrageous wrongdoings in the Paradise papers. The leaked papers reveal documents that passed through the global law firm Appleby, mostly operating out of our own Crown dependencies and overseas territories. They reveal a completely toxic mixture of every imaginable wrongdoing involving money—wrongdoing on an industrial scale, with household names, revered institutions, global corporations and international criminals implicated. I am afraid that that wrongdoing is not just ignored or condoned by the UK Government and our regulatory bodies, but only made possible by our rules and practices. We are not just complicit in what happens; we are central to its success.
Our country, our tax havens and our corporate structures have become the place of choice for every ne’er-do-well who wants to hide their wealth and avoid tax. If our Government are serious about guaranteeing a fairer society, and if they mean what they say about an economy that works for everyone, they really have to tackle tax avoidance and tax evasion, rather than just claiming progress by tinkering at the edges. They must start by clamping down on our own tax havens—the British overseas territories and Crown dependencies. This does not need another inquiry; it needs action now.
I pay tribute to all the journalists in 67 countries who worked through the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists to uncover these wicked practices and open them to public gaze and public scrutiny. In particular, I congratulate—
Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 9(3)).
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Nigel Adams.)

Margaret Hodge: In particular, I congratulate the team at The Guardian and “Panorama” on their brilliant investigative work to make sense of the tens of millions of documents and files that the leaks contained. This is journalism at its best and I salute all the journalists.
I also want to salute the brave whistleblower who put him or herself at enormous risk by passing the papers to the media. Every time this happens, the accused attack the accusers—the whistleblowers—and try to undermine their credibility. In this case, Lord Ashcroft’s public relations agent told The Guardian that Lord Ashcroft would not comment because
“you are referring to stolen data.”
The whistleblower obtained the information in the public interest; they did not steal it for private gain. Unlike Lord Ashcroft, the whistleblower was driven not by selfish greed, but by public-spirited, selfless bravery. That should be commended, not defamed.
In the next few days, we will see more data about famous rich people, about greedy global corporations, and about advisers—lawyers, accountants, bankers and other clever people who give advice to rich people about how best to hide their money. All are guilty of immoral if not illegal behaviour. It must be completely obvious to us all that anybody who is found to have used artificial financial structures offshore simply to hide their wealth and to avoid tax should not be awarded with an honour from the Queen. Lewis Hamilton should not receive a knighthood. Anybody in the political system who has deliberately used offshore accounts in tax havens to hide their money and avoid paying their fair contribution, through the taxes they pay to the common purse for the common good, should not, in my view, hold public office.
Much attention in the past 48 hours has been focused on the royal family and the funds held by the Duchy of Lancaster, and today’s focus has been on funds held by the Duchy of Cornwall. The royal family command admiration, respect and love across all the world. I am in no doubt that the Queen was as appalled as the rest of us to discover that her money had been invested offshore in Bermuda and the Cayman Islands, and that some of her money was invested through the private equity firm Vision Capital in unethical companies such as BrightHouse. BrightHouse rips off poor people who have no other option than to rent essential household goods from it, meaning that they can end up paying £1,092 for a washing machine that retails at £358. Indeed BrightHouse has just been forced by the Financial Conduct Authority to pay back £14.8 million to nearly a quarter of a million customers.
This is the Queen’s money invested offshore in unethical businesses. If there had been proper transparency in the Duchy of Lancaster’s affairs, this would never have happened. If the Treasury had properly monitored the financial affairs of the Duchy, the Queen’s reputation would not have been tarnished. Will the Minister please explain why we cannot have transparency in the affairs of the Duchy of Lancaster? Why did the Treasury fail to monitor the Duchy properly, sanctioning investments in offshore jurisdictions? The fact that the Queen’s financial advisers saw nothing wrong with investing offshore in dodgy companies shows how deeply entrenched and acceptable the practices of hiding wealth offshore and avoiding tax have become. It is the establishment norm for the rich and powerful, yet it is plain wrong and we need to stop it.
I wish to focus on issues that have not yet received the public scrutiny and attention that they deserve. The Paradise papers contain details of a tax scam that operated out of the Isle of Man, facilitated by the law  firm Appleby, with advice from one of the big four accountancy firms, EY—Ernst and Young. It is a lethal cocktail of accountants, lawyers and the super-rich. This is how the scam works. The super-rich buy private jets, which can cost anything up to £70 million. Lewis Hamilton spent £16.5 million on his. To avoid paying VAT on the purchase, the rich buy their private jets through companies they set up in tax havens. Lewis Hamilton used the British Virgin Islands and avoided VAT. Owners want to fly their planes in Europe, however, for which they need a certificate issued by a European jurisdiction to show that they have accounted for VAT and any other taxes.
At this point, in steps the Isle of Man, a jurisdiction that boasts the Queen as Lord of Mann. The advisers, EY and Appleby, create a company in the Isle of Man, controlled by the private jet owner Lewis Hamilton, which leases the jet from the BVI company controlled by Lewis Hamilton. The Isle of Man Government issue a VAT refund on the grounds that the jet is part of a leasing business, although the only customer is one Lewis Hamilton. The Isle of Man company then leases the jet to another offshore company in Guernsey, which is also controlled by Lewis Hamilton. This carousel of leasing companies, all controlled by Lewis Hamilton, exists simply to enable Lewis Hamilton to avoid a £3.3 million VAT bill, yet the plane has been leased only to Lewis Hamilton and he has never returned to the Isle of Man in his jet. Lewis Hamilton may wrap himself in the Union flag at Formula 1 races, but he should hold his head in shame at his contrived and deliberate refusal to pay the British taxes he should.
In the 10 years since the Isle of Man launched its aircraft registry, it has let hundreds of private jet owners off £790 million in VAT bills. It has never, ever turned down a request for a full VAT refund. Even if some of the VAT exemption was legitimate, in that the planes were used for some commercial rather than a personal purpose, a huge chunk of that money should have been paid to the Exchequer. Will the Minister tell us why Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs has allowed this to happen? At best, the scheme is artificial and potentially unlawful; at worst, Lewis Hamilton deliberately lied about using his jet for commercial purposes. Either way, money that we urgently need for our hospitals and schools is not being collected while the rich jet-setters simply get richer.
The Isle of Man has 80,000 inhabitants, who enjoy the highest living standards in the UK. The Isle of Man Government have issued a statement saying that they
“have found no evidence of wrongdoing or reason to believe that our Customs and Excise has been involved in the mistaken refunding of VAT.”
In my view, that is simply not true. The details in the Paradise papers demonstrate clearly that they knowingly and purposefully bend the interpretation of the rules to help the super-rich to avoid VAT. The Isle of Man is a tax haven that thrives on secrecy and half-truths. Since 2007, the Isle of Man has had a zero corporate tax rate for all businesses—domestic companies and offshore ones—except for banks. That was why Apple had the Isle of Man on the list of tax havens when it held its beauty contest as it looked for a new country to house its money.
By the way, for Apple to piously declare that it is not paying less tax in Jersey than it was in Ireland as evidence of its good behaviour beggars belief. Of course it is not paying less tax, because it was not paying much tax in Ireland before. We want Apple to pay more tax—fair tax and proper tax—on the profits it makes from its business outside the USA.
Back to the Isle of Man, one might ask how this small country can afford to raise enough in taxes to run its public services without any contribution from corporation tax. The answer is simple: we subsidise it. It is our tax money that substitutes for the tax income that it could receive from charging businesses properly. It is our money that enables it to be a tax haven. Our Government do not just tolerate tax havens. They are using our taxes to enable the Isle of Man to operate as a tax haven. As with all these things, the Government refuse to be transparent, so let me try to unravel this.
Because we and the Isle of Man share a border, we also share what is called a common purse for VAT and other import duties. All VAT and import duties collected by the Isle of Man are passed to Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, and then the Exchequer gives the Isle of Man a sum on the basis of a formula that is supposed to reflect how much VAT has been generated from the economic activity that takes place there. In 2016, the then Chief Secretary to the Treasury renegotiated the formula and agreed a generous annual uplift of way above the level of inflation.
We give the Isle of Man more than £300 million a year, which is just under one third of its entire budget for public expenditure. That figure is set to rise to £340 million by 2019. This sum appears to have nothing to do with what is happening in the Isle of Man’s real economy, where employment is down and the population is declining. It has everything to do with what seems to be a deliberate policy intention of our Government to subsidise the Isle of Man and thus promote and support it as a tax haven. The Treasury has refused to publish the details of the formula on which our payment is based. I ask the Minister to release those details so that we can see how the sum is determined.
What this shows is that we are not innocent bystanders who simply put up with the utterly unacceptable activities in tax havens that have been exposed in the Paradise papers. We actively support and enable tax havens to function and exist. Without our subsidy, the Isle of Man could not afford to have a zero rate of corporation tax and could not function as a tax haven. The Isle of Man is well and truly a UK tax haven. Far from being at the head of the fight against tax avoidance and evasion, and money laundering, we are at the heart of the evil conspiracy involving advisers, the super-rich, global corporations and Governments. We are aiding and abetting the very few wealthiest and most powerful in our society to keep their wealth secret and avoid paying their fair share of tax.
The Minister will try to claim that his Government have achieved a lot to tackle avoidance and evasion. He might try to say how much better his Government have been than the previous Labour Government. I have never defended the record of the Labour Government in this area, but his Government’s record is also shameful. It is not what is done that really matters, but what is left undone.
I urge the Minister to tear down the shroud of secrecy and force all our tax havens to have public registers of beneficial ownership. This simple ask for  better transparency about who owns what and where is utterly central to our desire to expose avoidance and hence stamp on it. I ask him to toughen up our regulatory bodies and to hound the Bonos, the Mrs Brown’s Boys and the Lewis Hamiltons of this world through the courts to make sure that they pay their proper dues. I ask the Minister to introduce legislation that will ensure that the advisers who dream up these tax avoidance wheezes are held to account for what they do, and held responsible and punished when schemes that they invent are found to be unlawful. Those three actions would go a long way to ensuring we have a responsible tax system that is fair to us all. I look forward to his response.

Mel Stride: May I begin by congratulating the right hon. Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge) on securing this important debate and on raising these important issues in her speech? She has, of course, been a determined campaigner over many years on these matters, especially as the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee. I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate and to be given the chance to discuss the Government’s approach to tackling tax avoidance and evasion. I will respond to as many of the points that the right hon. Lady raised as I can.
The Government take all allegations of tax avoidance and evasion extremely seriously. If any new allegations come to light, we will treat them with similar seriousness. We have a strong track record of tackling tax avoidance and evasion. By implementing 75 measures since 2010, we have secured £160 billion in additional tax revenues. But more on that later; I will now respond to the points raised by the right hon. Lady.
The right hon. Lady has raised the allegations regarding aircraft importation into the Isle of Man, which were also covered in the BBC’s “Panorama” programme in the last two days. I should first note that the Isle of Man, like all Crown dependencies, is a separate jurisdiction with its own democratically elected Government, under which it is responsible for fiscal matters. However, under the Isle of Man Act 1979, it has agreed to follow VAT rules very similar to the United Kingdom’s.
While the Isle of Man must apply VAT rules similar to the UK’s, the administration of the tax, including tackling avoidance and evasion, is the responsibility of its tax authorities. However, when required, the UK Government are always happy to provide advice and technical assistance to help the Isle of Man counter evasion and avoidance. I welcome the announcement from the Isle of Man Government that they are conducting a review into their procedures on VAT and the importation of aircraft. I also welcome their invitation for Her Majesty’s Treasury to carry out an assessment of these procedures, and I can inform the House that Treasury officials have been in the Isle of Man today, engaged in that important process. That is a responsible and appropriate approach to addressing these allegations and correcting potential non-compliance.
The UK Government will continue to work with the Isle of Man to help it address these issues and take steps to put an end to any evasion or avoidance. Where there are any problems of tax avoidance and evasion, these should dealt with by us fixing these issues together and not by ending our co-operation with the Isle of Man.
Let me turn now to some of the specific points the right hon. Lady raised. She referred to the plethora of leaks there have been over the years, and she is quite right. She congratulated The Guardian, among others, on its part in ensuring the dissemination of the information that has come to light. However, there is an important point here, which is that HMRC is determined to follow up any information, from whichever quarter, to ensure we clamp down on tax evasion and non-compliance. Yet despite repeated requests over the last 10 days, The Guardian and the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists have refused to hand over that information. If the right hon. Lady is able to assist in that, as well as congratulating the individuals concerned, that would be of great assistance to the Government and to her endeavours.

Mike Kane: Last night, the chairman of the Cayman Islands stock exchange said that journalists should be imprisoned. Does the Minister not agree that that was outrageous?

Mel Stride: I was not actually aware of those comments, but I can say that, from the Government’s perspective, we are certainly not in the business of advocating the locking-up of any journalists.
The second point the right hon. Lady raised was that we were “tinkering at the edges”—I think that was the expression she used—in clamping down on avoidance. Nothing could be further from the facts of the matter. Since 2010, we have brought in £160 billion, as I said, and £2.8 billion of that was from clamping down on those who have sought to hide wealth in overseas jurisdictions. We have one of the lowest tax gaps in the world, and the lowest in our history. She will probably know that if we were to have today the level of tax gap that we saw under the previous Labour Government, we would be about £45 billion worse off as a consequence. That is important money that we need in our Exchequer for the purposes of employing doctors, nurses, teachers and members of the police force, and of keeping our hospitals and all those vital public services that are the hallmark of a civilised society.
The right hon. Lady referred to the Duchy of Lancaster and transparency. The Duchy does of course publish its accounts—it lays them before this House, in fact. There has been no suggestion that I am aware of that any of the Duchy’s activities or investments have been improper or illegal. Of course, the Queen voluntarily pays tax on all the earnings from the Duchy of Lancaster.
The right hon. Lady referred specifically to Brighthouse. She is correct in her assertions that it has been fined by the FCA for the kinds of activities that she mentioned. However, those investments were, I understand, primarily made in 2005 under the previous Labour Government rather than under this Government. I believe that the amount invested as at today’s date is something in the order of £3,000 in total.
The right hon. Lady asked why HMRC allowed the Isle of Man situation to happen in respect of VAT and aircraft. Let us see what the investigation yields rather than perhaps jumping to a series of conclusions currently based on—from what I have seen, at least—a couple of television programmes. However, there may well be something there, and we will get to the bottom of it in due course.
The right hon. Lady asked about the sharing agreement in place between the Isle of Man and the United Kingdom in respect of VAT. She is right that there are at the moment ongoing discussions on a new formula. She referred to an automatic uplift in the Isle of Man’s share under that formula—it is a 4.5% uplift—and suggested that it may be overly generous. It will not be in the long run; once all the surveys and research have been carried out, in the event that it is found to be more generous than it should have been, there will be a clawback mechanism within the arrangement. In terms of transparency, once the formula is concluded it will be available within the public domain. On her assertion that this is a one-way subsidy from the United Kingdom to the Isle of Man with regard to VAT, I should say that there have been years when quite the reverse has been the case and there has in fact been a transfer from the Isle of Man to the United Kingdom from which we, and indeed her constituents, have benefited.
The right hon. Lady made a clarion call for us to tackle avoidance schemes and those who enable them. I confess that the Finance Bill that went through this House very recently was not the most entertaining of Bills; it ran to about 775 pages and was highly technical. However, I point her to the provisions within it for ensuring that those who enable tax avoidance will now be subject to sanction and penalty.
I hope that I have covered the majority, at least, of the points that the right hon. Lady raised. I again recognise the sterling work on this issue that she has done over many years, and pay tribute to her for it. I conclude, Mr Speaker, by wishing you a very—

Wes Streeting: rose—

Mel Stride: I give way to the hon. Gentleman—how could I refuse?

Wes Streeting: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman; I will now be kinder to him if he is in front of the Treasury Committee.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge) raised the long-standing issue of overseas territories and Crown dependencies being required to introduce a public register of beneficial ownership. Will the Minister address that point? Is there not an opportunity in the forthcoming Budget, as Oxfam has called for, to introduce public, country-by-country reporting for all multinational companies operating in the UK? Those are two practical measures on transparency that this Government could take leadership on.

Mel Stride: The hon. Gentleman raises two important points, and I will certainly take to the bank his offer to go easy on me when I appear before the Select Committee. His first point was about whether we should create registers of overseas interests in the public domain. What matters is that we give HMRC the tools to do the job. I file a tax return every year, and I have a last will and testament. They are not in the public domain, but HMRC is entitled to look at my tax return and ask me questions about it. What matters is the information available to the relevant tax authorities, and that is why the common reporting standard that we have introduced —in fact, a year earlier than the OECD suggested was required—is so important. Information is transferred between more than 100 countries to make sure that HMRC has the tools to do the job.
Country-by-country reporting is another important issue. Our view is that it is best met on a multilateral basis, so that all countries get involved at the same time. We continue to work with our European partners and others through the OECD in that endeavour.
Finally, for a second time, which is even more delightful than the first, may I wish you, Mr Speaker, and everybody in the House—all the staff, and all who make this extraordinary and wonderful institution work so well—a very happy and productive recess?
Question put and agreed to.
House adjourned.